Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 ruled that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme for waiver of late fees for filing GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 returns beyond Rs. 10,000/-. The Court found it improper to create differential treatment between taxpayers who filed returns before the amnesty notifications (No. 7/2023 and 25/2023) were issued and those who filed within the period prescribed by the notifications. Following precedents from HP HC in RT Pharma and Kerala HC in Anishia Chandrakanth, the Court held that the spirit of the notifications was to encourage return filing, and taxpayers should not be prejudiced merely because they filed returns prior to the notification date. Petition disposed of accordingly.
The HC ruled that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme for waiver of late fees for filing GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 returns beyond Rs. 10,000/-. The Court found it improper to create differential treatment between taxpayers who filed returns before the amnesty notifications (No. 7/2023 and 25/2023) were issued and those who filed within the period prescribed by the notifications. Following precedents from HP HC in RT Pharma and Kerala HC in Anishia Chandrakanth, the Court held that the spirit of the notifications was to encourage return filing, and taxpayers should not be prejudiced merely because they filed returns prior to the notification date. Petition disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.