Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC partly allowed the writ petition challenging the AAAR order regarding GST computation on refurbished car sales. The dispute concerned whether amounts paid to car owners and refurbishment costs should be included in purchase price for margin calculation under N/N. 08/2018-CT (Rate). Petitioner argued the appellate authority failed to address ITC issues not considered by AAR in the original valuation appeal. HC upheld the AAAR order but expunged certain observations, noting respondent could not dispute that ITC matters were not before the AAR. The challenge to AAR's order was not pressed by petitioner.
HC partly allowed the writ petition challenging the AAAR order regarding GST computation on refurbished car sales. The dispute concerned whether amounts paid to car owners and refurbishment costs should be included in purchase price for margin calculation under N/N. 08/2018-CT (Rate). Petitioner argued the appellate authority failed to address ITC issues not considered by AAR in the original valuation appeal. HC upheld the AAAR order but expunged certain observations, noting respondent could not dispute that ITC matters were not before the AAR. The challenge to AAR's order was not pressed by petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.