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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 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 quashed an ex-parte adjudication order requiring the petitioner-company to pay Rs. 2,20,75,208/- in tax, interest, and penalty under Section 73 of the KGST Act. Despite the petitioner's failure to respond to both the intimation dated 28.11.2023 and the show cause notice dated 08.12.2023, or to participate in the proceedings, the Court adopted a justice-oriented approach. The matter was remanded to respondent No. 3, providing the petitioner one more opportunity to submit a reply to the show cause notice and contest the proceedings. The Court made no determination on the merits of the case, directing further proceedings in accordance with law.
The HC quashed an ex-parte adjudication order requiring the petitioner-company to pay Rs. 2,20,75,208/- in tax, interest, and penalty under Section 73 of the KGST Act. Despite the petitioner's failure to respond to both the intimation dated 28.11.2023 and the show cause notice dated 08.12.2023, or to participate in the proceedings, the Court adopted a justice-oriented approach. The matter was remanded to respondent No. 3, providing the petitioner one more opportunity to submit a reply to the show cause notice and contest the proceedings. The Court made no determination on the merits of the case, directing further proceedings in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
