Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 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 challenge to the summary order is not barred by limitation. The levy of penalty exceeding the limits prescribed under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act is a matter for appeal and not for writ jurisdiction, especially given the allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit availment. The Court referenced prior rulings involving related entities, affirming that writ relief is inappropriate in such cases. The impugned order being appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioners were permitted to file appeals before the Appellate Authority. Appeals filed by 15th July 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit shall not be dismissed on limitation grounds. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC held that the challenge to the summary order is not barred by limitation. The levy of penalty exceeding the limits prescribed under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act is a matter for appeal and not for writ jurisdiction, especially given the allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit availment. The Court referenced prior rulings involving related entities, affirming that writ relief is inappropriate in such cases. The impugned order being appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioners were permitted to file appeals before the Appellate Authority. Appeals filed by 15th July 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit shall not be dismissed on limitation grounds. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
