Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 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 writ petition challenging the levy of GST on services rendered to foreign universities, holding that the petitioner's apprehension regarding prior findings by the Investigating Authority would not prejudice the Adjudicating Authority's independent adjudication under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act. The court emphasized the distinct roles of the Investigating Authority and the Quasi-Judicial Adjudicating Authority, noting that the latter must decide the show-cause notice based solely on material on record, unaffected by the former's opinions. The respondents confirmed that adjudication would be conducted by a Proper Officer of appropriate rank, with a corrigendum issued upon written request by the petitioner for adjudication by an Additional or Joint Commissioner. Consequently, no grounds for interference were found, and the petition was dismissed.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the levy of GST on services rendered to foreign universities, holding that the petitioner's apprehension regarding prior findings by the Investigating Authority would not prejudice the Adjudicating Authority's independent adjudication under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act. The court emphasized the distinct roles of the Investigating Authority and the Quasi-Judicial Adjudicating Authority, noting that the latter must decide the show-cause notice based solely on material on record, unaffected by the former's opinions. The respondents confirmed that adjudication would be conducted by a Proper Officer of appropriate rank, with a corrigendum issued upon written request by the petitioner for adjudication by an Additional or Joint Commissioner. Consequently, no grounds for interference were found, and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
