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" ?
HC held that GST registration license cancellation was improper due to procedural irregularities. The visit note by the CGST Superintendent lacked corroborative evidence, as no additional witnesses were present during the physical verification. The officer failed to record statements from nearby shop owners and obtain their signatures, rendering the verification process fundamentally flawed. The subsequent administrative orders at different levels were found unsustainable, primarily because the initial verification was conducted without proper protocol. The court emphasized the importance of following Rule 25 of GST Rules 2017, which mandates comprehensive documentation and witness verification during business premise inspections. Consequently, the petitioner's license cancellation was quashed, and the administrative orders were set aside.
HC held that GST registration license cancellation was improper due to procedural irregularities. The visit note by the CGST Superintendent lacked corroborative evidence, as no additional witnesses were present during the physical verification. The officer failed to record statements from nearby shop owners and obtain their signatures, rendering the verification process fundamentally flawed. The subsequent administrative orders at different levels were found unsustainable, primarily because the initial verification was conducted without proper protocol. The court emphasized the importance of following Rule 25 of GST Rules 2017, which mandates comprehensive documentation and witness verification during business premise inspections. Consequently, the petitioner's license cancellation was quashed, and the administrative orders were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
