Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 95875 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
