Tax deduction compliance and payee income recognition govern consultancy disallowance, while no exempt income prevents related expenditure disallowanc...
Derivative abetment liability fails when correctly declared imported components establish no underlying improper importation by the principal importer...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 96092 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 petitioner's application challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The court found no merit in the claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice, as the petitioner had responded to it, citing internal communication issues. The impugned order was issued after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard in compliance with the proviso to Section 29(2) of the CGST/BGST Act. The petitioner failed to file pending returns and pay admitted tax before the order dated 03.07.2020, which constituted a valid ground for cancellation under Section 29(2)(c). The court distinguished precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that in this case, reasons were duly provided and the petitioner was not denied a hearing. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the cancellation order and dismissed the petitioner's challenge.
The HC dismissed the petitioner's application challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The court found no merit in the claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice, as the petitioner had responded to it, citing internal communication issues. The impugned order was issued after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard in compliance with the proviso to Section 29(2) of the CGST/BGST Act. The petitioner failed to file pending returns and pay admitted tax before the order dated 03.07.2020, which constituted a valid ground for cancellation under Section 29(2)(c). The court distinguished precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that in this case, reasons were duly provided and the petitioner was not denied a hearing. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the cancellation order and dismissed the petitioner's challenge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.