Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
HC determined that the imposition of penalty under Section 122(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017 was procedurally flawed due to non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) regarding communication of tax details. The court found the tax liability determination for July 2017 to March 2019 legally erroneous. As an interim measure, the court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the tax amount determined in the original order within two weeks, with a consequent restraint on coercive recovery measures by the tax authorities pending further adjudication.
HC determined that the imposition of penalty under Section 122(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017 was procedurally flawed due to non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) regarding communication of tax details. The court found the tax liability determination for July 2017 to March 2019 legally erroneous. As an interim measure, the court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the tax amount determined in the original order within two weeks, with a consequent restraint on coercive recovery measures by the tax authorities pending further adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
