Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
HC held reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 were invalid due to statutory limitation u/s 149. The original notice was set aside for lacking mandatory approvals from competent authority. Court rejected Revenue's argument that limitation period should be extended due to prior litigation, stating time spent in previous challenges cannot extend statutory limitation periods. The fact that Revenue failed to take proper legal steps within prescribed timeframe cannot be used to justify extension of limitation period. No court order prevented Revenue from issuing valid notice within limitation period. Petition allowed, reassessment order and notices quashed as time-barred. Litigation time exclusion claim denied as limitation u/s 149 remained absolute.
HC held reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 were invalid due to statutory limitation u/s 149. The original notice was set aside for lacking mandatory approvals from competent authority. Court rejected Revenue's argument that limitation period should be extended due to prior litigation, stating time spent in previous challenges cannot extend statutory limitation periods. The fact that Revenue failed to take proper legal steps within prescribed timeframe cannot be used to justify extension of limitation period. No court order prevented Revenue from issuing valid notice within limitation period. Petition allowed, reassessment order and notices quashed as time-barred. Litigation time exclusion claim denied as limitation u/s 149 remained absolute.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
