Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Market value for captive electricity consumption follows industrial consumer tariffs, supporting profit computation for the power generation deduction...
HC determined directors' liability for GST non-compliance, finding Section 107 and 122(1A) of CGST Act applicable. The Court held that directors must be held responsible for fraudulent ITC availing and non-filing of returns, with the caveat that specific individual responsibilities require detailed factual scrutiny. The HC directed the Department to communicate appellate remedies within two weeks, mandating that any appeal filed within 30 days shall be adjudicated on merits without limitation bar. The core issue involves determining which directors retained transactional benefits and their precise organizational roles in potential tax irregularities.
HC determined directors' liability for GST non-compliance, finding Section 107 and 122(1A) of CGST Act applicable. The Court held that directors must be held responsible for fraudulent ITC availing and non-filing of returns, with the caveat that specific individual responsibilities require detailed factual scrutiny. The HC directed the Department to communicate appellate remedies within two weeks, mandating that any appeal filed within 30 days shall be adjudicated on merits without limitation bar. The core issue involves determining which directors retained transactional benefits and their precise organizational roles in potential tax irregularities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.