Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
HC adjudicated a GST dispute involving retrospective cancellation of suppliers' registrations and input tax credit reversal. The court found the respondents' invocation of Section 168A to extend order-passing timelines under Section 73(9) was procedurally valid. Despite petitioner's argument of no force majeure conditions and challenging the notifications, the court noted the petitioner had disclosed invoices, ledgers, and e-way bills demonstrating good faith transactions. The court partially acknowledged the petitioner's submissions, particularly regarding acceptance of explanations for two suppliers. The matter was adjourned until 28th April, 2025, with the impugned order remained stayed pending further judicial review.
HC adjudicated a GST dispute involving retrospective cancellation of suppliers' registrations and input tax credit reversal. The court found the respondents' invocation of Section 168A to extend order-passing timelines under Section 73(9) was procedurally valid. Despite petitioner's argument of no force majeure conditions and challenging the notifications, the court noted the petitioner had disclosed invoices, ledgers, and e-way bills demonstrating good faith transactions. The court partially acknowledged the petitioner's submissions, particularly regarding acceptance of explanations for two suppliers. The matter was adjourned until 28th April, 2025, with the impugned order remained stayed pending further judicial review.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
