Related-party creditor exclusion bars CoC participation where lender rights show policy-making involvement, and post-CIRP assignment cannot cure ineli...
Rectification of apparent typographical errors may proceed without hearing when tax liability, input tax credit, and ruling substance remain unchanged...
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 
