Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
