Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
