Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
HC quashed tax demand order under GST Act due to procedural irregularities in notice service. Petitioner claimed no awareness of notices or orders, preventing timely response within limitation period. Court found merit in petitioner's contention that order was not visible under system's "view notices and orders" tab, constituting violation of natural justice principles. Given that disputed amount was already deposited with State Government, HC directed treating impugned order as final notice, granting petitioner two weeks to submit written reply instead of relegating to statutory remedy. Matter resolved considering procedural fairness and existing tax deposit.
HC quashed tax demand order under GST Act due to procedural irregularities in notice service. Petitioner claimed no awareness of notices or orders, preventing timely response within limitation period. Court found merit in petitioner's contention that order was not visible under system's "view notices and orders" tab, constituting violation of natural justice principles. Given that disputed amount was already deposited with State Government, HC directed treating impugned order as final notice, granting petitioner two weeks to submit written reply instead of relegating to statutory remedy. Matter resolved considering procedural fairness and existing tax deposit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
