Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for alleged willful suppression or fraud in tax payment. The petitioner contended that Section 74 was inapplicable as the mistake was rectified through returns and reconciliation statements before proceedings commenced, and argued that the show-cause notice failed to specify circumstances warranting Section 74 invocation. The HC held that since the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the court in writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of without considering merits, directing the petitioner to pursue available statutory appellate remedies instead of seeking extraordinary writ relief.
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for alleged willful suppression or fraud in tax payment. The petitioner contended that Section 74 was inapplicable as the mistake was rectified through returns and reconciliation statements before proceedings commenced, and argued that the show-cause notice failed to specify circumstances warranting Section 74 invocation. The HC held that since the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the court in writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of without considering merits, directing the petitioner to pursue available statutory appellate remedies instead of seeking extraordinary writ relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
