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...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that notwithstanding procedural objections including alleged violation of natural justice, an unreasoned and unsigned order and breaches of Rule 26(3) and Rule 142(1) of the BGST/CGST Rules, the impugned order emanated from the petitioner's unequivocal admission of wrongfully availing and utilising input tax credit for 2017-18. The court found no substantive prejudice requiring judicial interference: the petitioner had filed a reply and no mandatory personal hearing omission vitiated the outcome. The Proper Officer merely raised a demand for interest under s.50(3) of the BGST Act, 2017; no penalty was imposed. Exercise of writ jurisdiction was declined and the petition was dismissed.
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that notwithstanding procedural objections including alleged violation of natural justice, an unreasoned and unsigned order and breaches of Rule 26(3) and Rule 142(1) of the BGST/CGST Rules, the impugned order emanated from the petitioner's unequivocal admission of wrongfully availing and utilising input tax credit for 2017-18. The court found no substantive prejudice requiring judicial interference: the petitioner had filed a reply and no mandatory personal hearing omission vitiated the outcome. The Proper Officer merely raised a demand for interest under s.50(3) of the BGST Act, 2017; no penalty was imposed. Exercise of writ jurisdiction was declined and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
