Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 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.