Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
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.