Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The HC examined whether proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 were time-barred. The proceedings commenced on 20.09.2023 via show cause notice with a final order issued on 15.12.2023. Applying the precedent established in M/s A.V. Pharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., the Court determined that such orders could only be passed until 31.12.2023, even with time extensions. Since the proceedings were completed within this timeframe (15.12.2023), they were not time-barred. However, the Court ultimately quashed the impugned orders and proceedings, allowing the petition on other undisclosed grounds.
The HC examined whether proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 were time-barred. The proceedings commenced on 20.09.2023 via show cause notice with a final order issued on 15.12.2023. Applying the precedent established in M/s A.V. Pharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., the Court determined that such orders could only be passed until 31.12.2023, even with time extensions. Since the proceedings were completed within this timeframe (15.12.2023), they were not time-barred. However, the Court ultimately quashed the impugned orders and proceedings, allowing the petition on other undisclosed grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
