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 held that the penalty imposed under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, for reversal of ITC due to mismatched returns was improperly determined without regard to relevant factors and applicable Circulars. The Tribunal erred by relying on an outdated Circular, failing to consider the subsequent Circular No.5/2021 issued pursuant to this Court's directive mandating a mechanism for return reconciliation. As the assessment and first appellate orders predated these developments, the HC found merit in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the latest Circular. The question of law was resolved in favor of the State, endorsing the remand for reassessment consistent with current procedural guidelines.
The HC held that the penalty imposed under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, for reversal of ITC due to mismatched returns was improperly determined without regard to relevant factors and applicable Circulars. The Tribunal erred by relying on an outdated Circular, failing to consider the subsequent Circular No.5/2021 issued pursuant to this Court's directive mandating a mechanism for return reconciliation. As the assessment and first appellate orders predated these developments, the HC found merit in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the latest Circular. The question of law was resolved in favor of the State, endorsing the remand for reassessment consistent with current procedural guidelines.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.