Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 on terms, directing the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed tax, noting the petitioner had previously deposited 10% upon filing an appeal against the 05.12.2023 order. The Court acknowledged prior rulings balancing the interests of the assessee and revenue, mandating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with GST laws, excluding the pendency period from limitation computation. However, this principle was stayed by the Division Bench, and a contrary view from another High Court was noted, holding that jurisdictional challenges to proceedings initiated under the respondent's authority are impermissible even if the prior appeal is allowed. The petition was disposed of following compliance with the deposit condition, thereby affirming the continuation of proceedings subject to statutory adherence and interim financial safeguards.
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 on terms, directing the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed tax, noting the petitioner had previously deposited 10% upon filing an appeal against the 05.12.2023 order. The Court acknowledged prior rulings balancing the interests of the assessee and revenue, mandating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with GST laws, excluding the pendency period from limitation computation. However, this principle was stayed by the Division Bench, and a contrary view from another High Court was noted, holding that jurisdictional challenges to proceedings initiated under the respondent's authority are impermissible even if the prior appeal is allowed. The petition was disposed of following compliance with the deposit condition, thereby affirming the continuation of proceedings subject to statutory adherence and interim financial safeguards.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
