Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
