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 quashed the adjudication and summary orders for failure to consider the petitioner's annual returns for 2018-19 and 2019-20, relying solely on GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that the respondents were obligated to evaluate the annual returns, reconcile ITC claims across years, and account for ITC reversals via DRC-03. The impugned order, premised on an alleged excess ITC claim without such comprehensive analysis, was unsustainable. The matter involved factual determinations requiring reappraisal and was accordingly remitted to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration at the stage of replying to the show cause notice. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC quashed the adjudication and summary orders for failure to consider the petitioner's annual returns for 2018-19 and 2019-20, relying solely on GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that the respondents were obligated to evaluate the annual returns, reconcile ITC claims across years, and account for ITC reversals via DRC-03. The impugned order, premised on an alleged excess ITC claim without such comprehensive analysis, was unsustainable. The matter involved factual determinations requiring reappraisal and was accordingly remitted to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration at the stage of replying to the show cause notice. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.