Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
