Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 dismissed the writ petition challenging the imposition of penalty under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act for fraudulent availment of ITC through fake firms. The court found that the petitioner, a GST consultant and former GST Department employee, was complicit in creating fictitious entities and aware of the ongoing fraudulent transactions. The petitioner failed to rebut the allegations of benefiting from the fraud, and the continuous nature of the offense satisfied the conditions for penalty under Section 122(1A). Although the limitation period for challenging the order had expired, the HC allowed the petitioner an opportunity to pursue appellate remedies under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the imposition of penalty under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act for fraudulent availment of ITC through fake firms. The court found that the petitioner, a GST consultant and former GST Department employee, was complicit in creating fictitious entities and aware of the ongoing fraudulent transactions. The petitioner failed to rebut the allegations of benefiting from the fraud, and the continuous nature of the offense satisfied the conditions for penalty under Section 122(1A). Although the limitation period for challenging the order had expired, the HC allowed the petitioner an opportunity to pursue appellate remedies under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
