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...
The HC held that the authorities improperly invoked Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the petitioner had already discharged the GST liability with interest before the show-cause notice issuance. The court emphasized that Section 74 applies only in cases involving fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, which were not established here. Given the vacancy in the State Tribunal and ongoing similar disputes in other High Courts and the Supreme Court, the HC found sufficient grounds to grant interim relief to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was admitted for hearing, acknowledging a prima facie case against the invocation of Section 74 under the present facts.
The HC held that the authorities improperly invoked Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the petitioner had already discharged the GST liability with interest before the show-cause notice issuance. The court emphasized that Section 74 applies only in cases involving fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, which were not established here. Given the vacancy in the State Tribunal and ongoing similar disputes in other High Courts and the Supreme Court, the HC found sufficient grounds to grant interim relief to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was admitted for hearing, acknowledging a prima facie case against the invocation of Section 74 under the present facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
