Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The petitioners challenged the show cause notices (SCNs) issued by the respondent under the CGST Act, IGST Act, and MGST Act, contending that the services rendered by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) are exempted or subject to a nil tax rate under the relevant exemption notifications. The key issues are: 1) The jurisdiction of the SCNs, as the petitioners claim the services are exempt or nil-rated. 2) The factual element regarding each demand must be examined against the backdrop of the exemption or nil rate notifications. 3) The adjudicating authority must determine whether the taxed activities relate to functions entrusted to MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. The High Court held that the petitions cannot bypass the statutory alternate remedies, as the issue of exemption applicability is debatable and requires factual examination. Splitting or quashing the SCNs is not permissible where arguable issues exist on both sides. The contention of the SCNs being wholly without jurisdiction cannot be accepted, and the petitions were dismissed.
The petitioners challenged the show cause notices (SCNs) issued by the respondent under the CGST Act, IGST Act, and MGST Act, contending that the services rendered by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) are exempted or subject to a nil tax rate under the relevant exemption notifications. The key issues are: 1) The jurisdiction of the SCNs, as the petitioners claim the services are exempt or nil-rated. 2) The factual element regarding each demand must be examined against the backdrop of the exemption or nil rate notifications. 3) The adjudicating authority must determine whether the taxed activities relate to functions entrusted to MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. The High Court held that the petitions cannot bypass the statutory alternate remedies, as the issue of exemption applicability is debatable and requires factual examination. Splitting or quashing the SCNs is not permissible where arguable issues exist on both sides. The contention of the SCNs being wholly without jurisdiction cannot be accepted, and the petitions were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
