Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice issued u/s 65 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for conducting an audit for the financial year 2020-21, even though the petitioner had ceased to be registered on the date of ordering the audit. The Court held that the provisions of Section 65 dealing with audit would apply to a person who was registered under the CGST Act for the period for which an audit is ordered, irrespective of subsequent de-registration. The preliminary audit report had found excess input tax credit claimed, improper reversal of input tax credit, and short disclosure of other income, resulting in a total tax plus interest liability. The Court observed that a person cannot escape audit proceedings by claiming de-registration, as obligations u/s 65(5) must be complied with, and Section 29(3) requires discharge of obligations even after cancellation of registration. Obstructing audit proceedings by taking such a plea would be improper if the assessee has defaulted in tax payment, wrongly availed input tax credit or refund.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice issued u/s 65 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for conducting an audit for the financial year 2020-21, even though the petitioner had ceased to be registered on the date of ordering the audit. The Court held that the provisions of Section 65 dealing with audit would apply to a person who was registered under the CGST Act for the period for which an audit is ordered, irrespective of subsequent de-registration. The preliminary audit report had found excess input tax credit claimed, improper reversal of input tax credit, and short disclosure of other income, resulting in a total tax plus interest liability. The Court observed that a person cannot escape audit proceedings by claiming de-registration, as obligations u/s 65(5) must be complied with, and Section 29(3) requires discharge of obligations even after cancellation of registration. Obstructing audit proceedings by taking such a plea would be improper if the assessee has defaulted in tax payment, wrongly availed input tax credit or refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
