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...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed the writ petition for lack of maintainability, holding that petitioners cannot bypass the alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the adjudication orders. The Court declined to adjudicate on whether the show-cause notices disclosed fraud, willful misstatement or suppression, noting the notices were issued within the three-year period under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act and therefore remain competent even if an incorrect section (Section 74) was quoted. The Court held mere misquotation does not render a notice without jurisdiction if it can be sustained under the correct provision. Petition dismissed; petitioners left at liberty to prosecute the appeals already instituted against the impugned adjudication orders.
The HC dismissed the writ petition for lack of maintainability, holding that petitioners cannot bypass the alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the adjudication orders. The Court declined to adjudicate on whether the show-cause notices disclosed fraud, willful misstatement or suppression, noting the notices were issued within the three-year period under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act and therefore remain competent even if an incorrect section (Section 74) was quoted. The Court held mere misquotation does not render a notice without jurisdiction if it can be sustained under the correct provision. Petition dismissed; petitioners left at liberty to prosecute the appeals already instituted against the impugned adjudication orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
