Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the petitioner's short payment of GST related to works contract services did not amount to wilful suppression of facts or fraud. Consequently, proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST/KGST Act, which apply to cases involving fraud or wilful misstatement, were inappropriate. Instead, the matter fell under Section 73, which addresses determination of tax short paid without fraudulent intent. The court concluded that any due amount from PWD to the petitioner was irrelevant to GST liability and that the petitioner was not guilty of suppression. The impugned order was accordingly recharacterized as an order under Section 73 rather than Section 74. The petitioner had already paid the determined amount, and the writ petition was disposed of on this basis.
The HC held that the petitioner's short payment of GST related to works contract services did not amount to wilful suppression of facts or fraud. Consequently, proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST/KGST Act, which apply to cases involving fraud or wilful misstatement, were inappropriate. Instead, the matter fell under Section 73, which addresses determination of tax short paid without fraudulent intent. The court concluded that any due amount from PWD to the petitioner was irrelevant to GST liability and that the petitioner was not guilty of suppression. The impugned order was accordingly recharacterized as an order under Section 73 rather than Section 74. The petitioner had already paid the determined amount, and the writ petition was disposed of on this basis.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.