Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The HC set aside the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act due to non-assignment of reasons and violation of natural justice. The court held that cancellation for non-filing of returns over six months must comply with the procedural safeguards under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Since the petitioner expressed willingness to submit all pending returns and pay applicable tax, interest, and late fees, the HC directed the petitioner to approach the competent officer within two months to seek restoration of registration. Upon such compliance, the officer is mandated to consider dropping cancellation proceedings and restore the GST registration by issuing the prescribed order under Form GST REG-20. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
The HC set aside the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act due to non-assignment of reasons and violation of natural justice. The court held that cancellation for non-filing of returns over six months must comply with the procedural safeguards under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Since the petitioner expressed willingness to submit all pending returns and pay applicable tax, interest, and late fees, the HC directed the petitioner to approach the competent officer within two months to seek restoration of registration. Upon such compliance, the officer is mandated to consider dropping cancellation proceedings and restore the GST registration by issuing the prescribed order under Form GST REG-20. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
