Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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.