Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court ruled on the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which was challenged as being ultra vires Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, and violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution. The court held that Rule 96(10), as inserted by a notification dated 09-10-2018 with effect from 23-10-2017, is ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and manifestly arbitrary, producing absurd results unintended by the legislature. Consequently, the court declared Rule 96(10) unenforceable and quashed any actions or orders against the petitioners based on it. The court directed that no proceedings shall be taken to recover IGST refunded to the petitioners by applying Rule 96(10) for the period between 23-10-2017 and 08-10-2024.
The High Court ruled on the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which was challenged as being ultra vires Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, and violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution. The court held that Rule 96(10), as inserted by a notification dated 09-10-2018 with effect from 23-10-2017, is ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and manifestly arbitrary, producing absurd results unintended by the legislature. Consequently, the court declared Rule 96(10) unenforceable and quashed any actions or orders against the petitioners based on it. The court directed that no proceedings shall be taken to recover IGST refunded to the petitioners by applying Rule 96(10) for the period between 23-10-2017 and 08-10-2024.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
