Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Administrative fraud classification suspension does not halt independent criminal investigation or warrant-based searches into alleged economic offenc...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
761 to 780 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the tax authorities violated principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's explanation regarding duplication of taxable supply amounts in Form GSTR-1. The petitioner had demonstrated in Form GST ASMT-11 that there was no actual discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 returns, as the data had been reconciled. Despite this, authorities proceeded to issue notice under section 73 and passed an order-in-original without providing the mandatory hearing opportunity required by section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court allowed the petition, remanding the matter to respondent no.3 for a fresh de novo order after providing the petitioner proper hearing opportunity.
The HC held that the tax authorities violated principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's explanation regarding duplication of taxable supply amounts in Form GSTR-1. The petitioner had demonstrated in Form GST ASMT-11 that there was no actual discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 returns, as the data had been reconciled. Despite this, authorities proceeded to issue notice under section 73 and passed an order-in-original without providing the mandatory hearing opportunity required by section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court allowed the petition, remanding the matter to respondent no.3 for a fresh de novo order after providing the petitioner proper hearing opportunity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
