Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The HC held that invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 74 of the CGST Act is a jurisdictional aspect in the present case. The petitioner has been paying GST at 5% under Entry No. 181-A for the product in question since 2017, while paying higher GST at 12% for different products. As Entry No. 181-A is not different from the similarly worded sub-heading 3003.31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which has been repeatedly interpreted contrary to the allegations in the show cause notice, the aspect of invoking the extended period requires consideration along with the binding nature of the GST Council's deliberations. The HC found the issues raised to be jurisdictional and issued notice for further consideration.
The HC held that invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 74 of the CGST Act is a jurisdictional aspect in the present case. The petitioner has been paying GST at 5% under Entry No. 181-A for the product in question since 2017, while paying higher GST at 12% for different products. As Entry No. 181-A is not different from the similarly worded sub-heading 3003.31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which has been repeatedly interpreted contrary to the allegations in the show cause notice, the aspect of invoking the extended period requires consideration along with the binding nature of the GST Council's deliberations. The HC found the issues raised to be jurisdictional and issued notice for further consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
