Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 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 set aside the cancellation of petitioner's GST registration, finding that authorities failed to follow proper procedural requirements. The appellate authority had rejected the appeal solely because the HSN/SAC code disclosure in registration applications suggested two registrations covered the same business. However, the court determined that authorities did not establish any violations under Rule 21 of the GST Act, which prescribes specific conditions for registration cancellation. The revenue department also failed to demonstrate that petitioner obtained registration by breaching conditions under Section 29(2) read with Rule 21. The court directed immediate restoration of the petitioner's GST registration upon presentation of the order.
The HC set aside the cancellation of petitioner's GST registration, finding that authorities failed to follow proper procedural requirements. The appellate authority had rejected the appeal solely because the HSN/SAC code disclosure in registration applications suggested two registrations covered the same business. However, the court determined that authorities did not establish any violations under Rule 21 of the GST Act, which prescribes specific conditions for registration cancellation. The revenue department also failed to demonstrate that petitioner obtained registration by breaching conditions under Section 29(2) read with Rule 21. The court directed immediate restoration of the petitioner's GST registration upon presentation of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
