Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The HC partially allowed the petition challenging GST adjudication proceedings under Section 73 following audit under Section 65 of the GST Act. The primary legal issue concerned interpretation of "plant or machinery" under Section 17(5)(d) regarding whether buildings qualify as "plant" for input tax credit restrictions. The Court quashed the impugned adjudication order dated 28.02.2025 and restored proceedings to the first respondent for fresh consideration, ensuring complete adjudication. The petitioner's deposited 10% of the demand amount was directed to be held by respondents pending conclusion of restored proceedings. The matter was remanded for proper reconsideration of the classification issue.
The HC partially allowed the petition challenging GST adjudication proceedings under Section 73 following audit under Section 65 of the GST Act. The primary legal issue concerned interpretation of "plant or machinery" under Section 17(5)(d) regarding whether buildings qualify as "plant" for input tax credit restrictions. The Court quashed the impugned adjudication order dated 28.02.2025 and restored proceedings to the first respondent for fresh consideration, ensuring complete adjudication. The petitioner's deposited 10% of the demand amount was directed to be held by respondents pending conclusion of restored proceedings. The matter was remanded for proper reconsideration of the classification issue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.