Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging GST assessment orders under Section 73(9) CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed clerical errors caused turnover suppression totaling Rs.4,41,27,934.50 across December 2018 and January 2019 returns, with mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 filings. The assessing authority quantified liability for suppressed turnover, wrongful input tax credit utilization, and delayed tax payment. The appellate authority found insufficient evidence per clarificatory circular dated 27.02.2022 and Section 16(2). The HC held the assessment orders contained no natural justice violations or jurisdictional errors, noting available statutory remedy before the Tribunal. The Court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction where adequate alternative remedies existed.
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging GST assessment orders under Section 73(9) CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed clerical errors caused turnover suppression totaling Rs.4,41,27,934.50 across December 2018 and January 2019 returns, with mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 filings. The assessing authority quantified liability for suppressed turnover, wrongful input tax credit utilization, and delayed tax payment. The appellate authority found insufficient evidence per clarificatory circular dated 27.02.2022 and Section 16(2). The HC held the assessment orders contained no natural justice violations or jurisdictional errors, noting available statutory remedy before the Tribunal. The Court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction where adequate alternative remedies existed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
