Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The HC set aside orders cancelling GST registrations under CGST/SGST Acts 2017, finding procedural violations by the Proper Officer. The court determined that cancellation under Section 29(2) requires proper notice and meaningful opportunity for hearing per Rule 22, not mere formality. Despite petitioners' failure to respond to show cause notices, the impugned orders erroneously referenced non-existent replies, rendering the proceedings defective. While revocation applications were time-barred (exceeding 270 days under Rule 23), the court intervened due to jurisdictional errors. The registrations were restored with conditions, including extended deadlines for filing annual returns except for 2024-2025, which remains governed by Section 44 requirements.
The HC set aside orders cancelling GST registrations under CGST/SGST Acts 2017, finding procedural violations by the Proper Officer. The court determined that cancellation under Section 29(2) requires proper notice and meaningful opportunity for hearing per Rule 22, not mere formality. Despite petitioners' failure to respond to show cause notices, the impugned orders erroneously referenced non-existent replies, rendering the proceedings defective. While revocation applications were time-barred (exceeding 270 days under Rule 23), the court intervened due to jurisdictional errors. The registrations were restored with conditions, including extended deadlines for filing annual returns except for 2024-2025, which remains governed by Section 44 requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
