Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 27.12.2023, holding the proceedings initiated under s.74 of the GST Act to be without jurisdiction. The court found respondent-authority erred by invoking s.74 despite an existing show-cause notice and OIO (20.02.2023) alleging wrongful carry-forward of CENVAT/service-tax credit of Rs.4,15,55,899 and a pending appeal before the CESTAT; it also noted non-consideration of the petitioner's reply and a copy of the pending OIO, raising natural justice concerns. Consequently the show-cause notice dated 13.07.2022 and the resultant OIO were set aside and the petition was allowed.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 27.12.2023, holding the proceedings initiated under s.74 of the GST Act to be without jurisdiction. The court found respondent-authority erred by invoking s.74 despite an existing show-cause notice and OIO (20.02.2023) alleging wrongful carry-forward of CENVAT/service-tax credit of Rs.4,15,55,899 and a pending appeal before the CESTAT; it also noted non-consideration of the petitioner's reply and a copy of the pending OIO, raising natural justice concerns. Consequently the show-cause notice dated 13.07.2022 and the resultant OIO were set aside and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
