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...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
401 to 420 of 95875 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 dismissed the petition challenging the levy of penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017, and related provisions, concerning fraudulent use of a second GST registration. The court found contradictions in the petitioner's claim of non-use of the second registration and noted the petitioner's failure to actively pursue the investigation since 2019. The petition was held to be premature for writ relief due to the necessity of factual inquiry and the expiry of the limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court emphasized the petitioner's responsibility to safeguard its identity and held that the impugned order did not merit interference. The petitioner was directed to avail statutory remedies by filing an appeal within the prescribed time with the requisite pre-deposit.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the levy of penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017, and related provisions, concerning fraudulent use of a second GST registration. The court found contradictions in the petitioner's claim of non-use of the second registration and noted the petitioner's failure to actively pursue the investigation since 2019. The petition was held to be premature for writ relief due to the necessity of factual inquiry and the expiry of the limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court emphasized the petitioner's responsibility to safeguard its identity and held that the impugned order did not merit interference. The petitioner was directed to avail statutory remedies by filing an appeal within the prescribed time with the requisite pre-deposit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
