Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 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 set aside both the order passed by the proper officer and the appellate order concerning the petitioner's failure to respond to notices issued under Sections 61 and 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, relating to alleged wrongful utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC). Despite the petitioner's claim of illness preventing response, the court found no sufficient explanation for non-compliance with the scrutiny and show-cause notices. The imposition of interest on the petitioner for availing ITC was noted, though utilization details were unclear. Consequently, the challenge to the rejection of the appeal was allowed, and the petition was disposed of, effectively nullifying the prior adverse orders against the petitioner.
The HC set aside both the order passed by the proper officer and the appellate order concerning the petitioner's failure to respond to notices issued under Sections 61 and 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, relating to alleged wrongful utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC). Despite the petitioner's claim of illness preventing response, the court found no sufficient explanation for non-compliance with the scrutiny and show-cause notices. The imposition of interest on the petitioner for availing ITC was noted, though utilization details were unclear. Consequently, the challenge to the rejection of the appeal was allowed, and the petition was disposed of, effectively nullifying the prior adverse orders against the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
