Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The HC quashed the impugned Order-in-Original covering tax periods from 2017-18 through July 2023, remanding the matter to the third respondent for fresh consideration. This decision was predicated on the petitioner's expressed intention to avail benefits under the Amnesty Scheme provided in Section 128(A) of the CGST Act, which specifically applies to financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The court determined that remittal was the appropriate remedy to allow proper consideration of the Amnesty Scheme's applicability to the relevant portion of the assessment periods, directing the third respondent to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.
The HC quashed the impugned Order-in-Original covering tax periods from 2017-18 through July 2023, remanding the matter to the third respondent for fresh consideration. This decision was predicated on the petitioner's expressed intention to avail benefits under the Amnesty Scheme provided in Section 128(A) of the CGST Act, which specifically applies to financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The court determined that remittal was the appropriate remedy to allow proper consideration of the Amnesty Scheme's applicability to the relevant portion of the assessment periods, directing the third respondent to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
