Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
