Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The HC quashed the retrospective cancellation of GST registration under SS29 of CGST Act, 2017, finding procedural violations. Neither the SCN nor final order provided material evidence supporting the allegation under SS29(2)(e), nor did they notify the petitioner of intended retrospective cancellation. This procedural defect alone invalidated the action. The court clarified that authorities may continue proceedings regarding alleged fraudulent registration, provided the petitioner receives proper notice with supporting evidence. On time limitation, the court referenced Addichem Speciality LLP, confirming that condonation of delay depends on statutory provisions governing the remedy. The March 20, 2024 order was quashed insofar as it retrospectively canceled registration.
The HC quashed the retrospective cancellation of GST registration under SS29 of CGST Act, 2017, finding procedural violations. Neither the SCN nor final order provided material evidence supporting the allegation under SS29(2)(e), nor did they notify the petitioner of intended retrospective cancellation. This procedural defect alone invalidated the action. The court clarified that authorities may continue proceedings regarding alleged fraudulent registration, provided the petitioner receives proper notice with supporting evidence. On time limitation, the court referenced Addichem Speciality LLP, confirming that condonation of delay depends on statutory provisions governing the remedy. The March 20, 2024 order was quashed insofar as it retrospectively canceled registration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
