Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
HC disposed of writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) for non-furnishing returns for six months. Court found violation of natural justice principles as no personal hearing date was notified to petitioner. HC directed petitioner to approach concerned authority within two months seeking restoration by filing pending returns and paying tax dues with interest and late fees. Court held that if petitioner complies with proviso to Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules 2017, authority must consider restoration application expeditiously in accordance with law, given serious civil consequences of registration cancellation.
HC disposed of writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) for non-furnishing returns for six months. Court found violation of natural justice principles as no personal hearing date was notified to petitioner. HC directed petitioner to approach concerned authority within two months seeking restoration by filing pending returns and paying tax dues with interest and late fees. Court held that if petitioner complies with proviso to Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules 2017, authority must consider restoration application expeditiously in accordance with law, given serious civil consequences of registration cancellation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
