Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
The HC held that since the entire tax liability was discharged through the electronic credit ledger before any intimation or show-cause notice, and there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression by the petitioner, the provisions of Sec. 74 of the GST Act are inapplicable. The petitioner's failure to offset the tax liability from the credit ledger was inadvertent and not indicative of fraud. Consequently, the HC directed the respondent AO to pass a fresh de novo order under Sec. 73 of the GST Act, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within three months from receipt of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The HC held that since the entire tax liability was discharged through the electronic credit ledger before any intimation or show-cause notice, and there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression by the petitioner, the provisions of Sec. 74 of the GST Act are inapplicable. The petitioner's failure to offset the tax liability from the credit ledger was inadvertent and not indicative of fraud. Consequently, the HC directed the respondent AO to pass a fresh de novo order under Sec. 73 of the GST Act, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within three months from receipt of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.