Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95955 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 filed under section 61 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, due to the petitioner's unexplained delay in filing the appeal and failure to pay a substantial outstanding demand. Despite being notified of discrepancies, the petitioner neither complied with the payment requirements nor responded to the Court's offer to secure Rs. 1 crore as security. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief without securing at least part of the demand. The petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount, after adjusting the pre-deposit, within four weeks. Upon such payment, the appellate authority is mandated to hear and decide the appeal on its merits. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC dismissed the petition filed under section 61 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, due to the petitioner's unexplained delay in filing the appeal and failure to pay a substantial outstanding demand. Despite being notified of discrepancies, the petitioner neither complied with the payment requirements nor responded to the Court's offer to secure Rs. 1 crore as security. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief without securing at least part of the demand. The petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount, after adjusting the pre-deposit, within four weeks. Upon such payment, the appellate authority is mandated to hear and decide the appeal on its merits. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
