Clean slate principle extinguishes uncrystallised operational claims and bars continuation of pending recovery and arbitral proceedings after plan app...
Works contract classification governs composite layout-development contracts where VAT-paid goods are transferred alongside construction and infrastru...
Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1061 to 1080 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" ?
The HC allowed the petitioner's challenge to an appellate order under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had belatedly filed an appeal against a Section 74 order dated 19th January 2021 covering the tax period April 2018 to November 2019, depositing 12.5% of disputed tax under the belated filing scheme. However, Rs.1,45,188 had been recovered from the petitioner's credit ledger against demand id ZD190121004969C, which was not properly credited in Form GST APL-04. Since the total tax demand in Form GST DRC-07 was Rs.1,14,736 and Rs.1,45,188 had already been recovered, no further demand could be raised. The HC found the recovered amount should have been adjusted against principal tax demand first, remanding the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration due to lack of clarity in the order.
The HC allowed the petitioner's challenge to an appellate order under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had belatedly filed an appeal against a Section 74 order dated 19th January 2021 covering the tax period April 2018 to November 2019, depositing 12.5% of disputed tax under the belated filing scheme. However, Rs.1,45,188 had been recovered from the petitioner's credit ledger against demand id ZD190121004969C, which was not properly credited in Form GST APL-04. Since the total tax demand in Form GST DRC-07 was Rs.1,14,736 and Rs.1,45,188 had already been recovered, no further demand could be raised. The HC found the recovered amount should have been adjusted against principal tax demand first, remanding the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration due to lack of clarity in the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
