Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC affirmed penalties under Section 74 of CGST Act against petitioner for wilful suppression of facts through non-filing of monthly returns and non-payment of GST. Despite petitioner's claim that non-payment resulted from client's default, evidence showed partial payments were received from the client. Court held that Section 74 penalties require proof of intentional evasion through fraud, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression - mere non-payment is insufficient. Here, petitioner's conduct demonstrated wilful suppression as defined in Explanation-2, warranting penalties. Court rejected argument that Section 74 notice was invalid because tax was paid before notice issuance, noting interest under Section 50 remained unpaid. Additional consequential penalties were upheld.
HC affirmed penalties under Section 74 of CGST Act against petitioner for wilful suppression of facts through non-filing of monthly returns and non-payment of GST. Despite petitioner's claim that non-payment resulted from client's default, evidence showed partial payments were received from the client. Court held that Section 74 penalties require proof of intentional evasion through fraud, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression - mere non-payment is insufficient. Here, petitioner's conduct demonstrated wilful suppression as defined in Explanation-2, warranting penalties. Court rejected argument that Section 74 notice was invalid because tax was paid before notice issuance, noting interest under Section 50 remained unpaid. Additional consequential penalties were upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
