Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 
