Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The High Court held that the penalty order u/s 271D was barred by limitation as the order imposing penalty was required to be passed within six months from the end of the month in which the reference from the Assessing Officer was received by the competent authority. Since the reference was received on 18.01.2023, the penalty order should have been passed by 31.07.2023. However, the competent authority delayed the proceedings by asking for further documents after almost one year, which was beyond the permissible period. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty order was allowed by the High Court.
The High Court held that the penalty order u/s 271D was barred by limitation as the order imposing penalty was required to be passed within six months from the end of the month in which the reference from the Assessing Officer was received by the competent authority. Since the reference was received on 18.01.2023, the penalty order should have been passed by 31.07.2023. However, the competent authority delayed the proceedings by asking for further documents after almost one year, which was beyond the permissible period. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty order was allowed by the High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
