Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 96046 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 held that the denial by the respondents to apply Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST/IGST Act based on the clarification dated 31.12.2018 and previous judgments was unjustified. The finding of the authority in Para-4 of its order was essentially factual and solely based on communication from CGST, Delhi regarding initiation of cancellation proceedings, without any evidence on record. The GSTIN status produced by the petitioner indicated a different status from what was claimed by the Delhi authority. Consequently, the impugned demand of penalty order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority to pass a fresh order. The writ petition was allowed by way of remand.
The High Court held that the denial by the respondents to apply Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST/IGST Act based on the clarification dated 31.12.2018 and previous judgments was unjustified. The finding of the authority in Para-4 of its order was essentially factual and solely based on communication from CGST, Delhi regarding initiation of cancellation proceedings, without any evidence on record. The GSTIN status produced by the petitioner indicated a different status from what was claimed by the Delhi authority. Consequently, the impugned demand of penalty order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority to pass a fresh order. The writ petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
