Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
