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" ?
HC condoned the delay in filing GST returns beyond the 30-day period specified in Section 62(2) of the GST Act, 2017, following the precedent established in Comfort Shoe Components case. While granting relief, the Court preserved the respondent's authority to impose applicable late fees for the delayed period. The petitioner was directed to file a formal application for condonation of delay before the respondent within 15 days from receipt of the order. The petition was accordingly disposed of, balancing taxpayer relief with regulatory compliance by maintaining the statutory consequence of late filing while removing the procedural bar.
HC condoned the delay in filing GST returns beyond the 30-day period specified in Section 62(2) of the GST Act, 2017, following the precedent established in Comfort Shoe Components case. While granting relief, the Court preserved the respondent's authority to impose applicable late fees for the delayed period. The petitioner was directed to file a formal application for condonation of delay before the respondent within 15 days from receipt of the order. The petition was accordingly disposed of, balancing taxpayer relief with regulatory compliance by maintaining the statutory consequence of late filing while removing the procedural bar.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
