Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
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...
The HC issued a writ of mandamus directing NOIDA to compensate the petitioner, head of a Hindu Undivided Family, Rs. 19,22,778/- within 15 days for penalties imposed under the GST Act. NOIDA had acknowledged that the petitioner's GST payment was deposited under the wrong head due to their error, not the petitioner's fault. Following the Supreme Court's principle in Batliboi that compensation should not result in windfall for one party at another's expense, the court determined the petitioner should not suffer penalties for NOIDA's administrative mistake. NOIDA must notify the District Magistrate after payment and retains the right to recover the amount from its erring officers. Petition disposed of.
The HC issued a writ of mandamus directing NOIDA to compensate the petitioner, head of a Hindu Undivided Family, Rs. 19,22,778/- within 15 days for penalties imposed under the GST Act. NOIDA had acknowledged that the petitioner's GST payment was deposited under the wrong head due to their error, not the petitioner's fault. Following the Supreme Court's principle in Batliboi that compensation should not result in windfall for one party at another's expense, the court determined the petitioner should not suffer penalties for NOIDA's administrative mistake. NOIDA must notify the District Magistrate after payment and retains the right to recover the amount from its erring officers. Petition disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
