Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC ruled that voluntary payment made through Form GST DRC-03 constitutes valid pre-deposit for filing appeal against order-in-original, even though Form GST DRC-03A was introduced later. Following Circular No.224/18/2024-GST's clarification that DRC-03 payments shall be considered equivalent to DRC-03A pre-deposits, the Court set aside the rejection order dated 26.07.2024. The appeal was restored, with direction to consider the amount paid via DRC-03 as valid pre-deposit. The Court noted that despite multiple adjournments, authorities failed to verify the payment status, while funds remained in DRC-03. The petition was disposed of with instructions to accept the existing payment as legitimate pre-deposit for appeal purposes.
HC ruled that voluntary payment made through Form GST DRC-03 constitutes valid pre-deposit for filing appeal against order-in-original, even though Form GST DRC-03A was introduced later. Following Circular No.224/18/2024-GST's clarification that DRC-03 payments shall be considered equivalent to DRC-03A pre-deposits, the Court set aside the rejection order dated 26.07.2024. The appeal was restored, with direction to consider the amount paid via DRC-03 as valid pre-deposit. The Court noted that despite multiple adjournments, authorities failed to verify the payment status, while funds remained in DRC-03. The petition was disposed of with instructions to accept the existing payment as legitimate pre-deposit for appeal purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
