Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
