Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 
