Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
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 ...
The High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish lack of jurisdiction for issuance of the show cause notice (SCN) by the State Tax Authority, despite the absence of a notification u/s 6(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court opined that a notification is required only when restrictions or conditions are to be imposed on the exercise of power by officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act. However, considering the contrary view expressed by the Madras High Court in Tvl. Vardhan Infrastructure, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.
The High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish lack of jurisdiction for issuance of the show cause notice (SCN) by the State Tax Authority, despite the absence of a notification u/s 6(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court opined that a notification is required only when restrictions or conditions are to be imposed on the exercise of power by officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act. However, considering the contrary view expressed by the Madras High Court in Tvl. Vardhan Infrastructure, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
