Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
