Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
