Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the appellate authority's suo motu restoration of an IGST demand, previously dropped by the adjudicating authority, was unsustainable under the statutory scheme and Section 75(7); the appellate body could not lawfully revive the demand without issuing a fresh show-cause notice as contemplated by the second proviso to Section 107(11). Because the outer limitation for issuing a fresh show-cause has expired, the petitioner cannot be saddled with a new liability and the impugned demand is set aside. The respondents are directed to revise the demand in FORM GST APL-04 in accordance with this order and, insofar as discrepancy No. 4 engages Section 16(5), to grant the petitioner any entitled benefit. Petition disposed.
HC held that the appellate authority's suo motu restoration of an IGST demand, previously dropped by the adjudicating authority, was unsustainable under the statutory scheme and Section 75(7); the appellate body could not lawfully revive the demand without issuing a fresh show-cause notice as contemplated by the second proviso to Section 107(11). Because the outer limitation for issuing a fresh show-cause has expired, the petitioner cannot be saddled with a new liability and the impugned demand is set aside. The respondents are directed to revise the demand in FORM GST APL-04 in accordance with this order and, insofar as discrepancy No. 4 engages Section 16(5), to grant the petitioner any entitled benefit. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
