Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 the cancellation of registration of petitioner no. 1 under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, which had been initially revoked on grounds of fraud, willful misstatement, and suppression of facts regarding the existence of the business entity at the notified address. Following a directed inquiry and physical verification pursuant to Rule 25 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, the Court found the business premises to be legitimately operational at the specified location. Consequently, the Court held that the cancellation order dated 17th February 2023 and all consequential orders were unsustainable and quashed them. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC set aside the cancellation of registration of petitioner no. 1 under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, which had been initially revoked on grounds of fraud, willful misstatement, and suppression of facts regarding the existence of the business entity at the notified address. Following a directed inquiry and physical verification pursuant to Rule 25 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, the Court found the business premises to be legitimately operational at the specified location. Consequently, the Court held that the cancellation order dated 17th February 2023 and all consequential orders were unsustainable and quashed them. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.