Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
