Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
