Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
