Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 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 allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 30.04.2019 and 22.02.2018 issued under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The court held that the vehicle (Reg. No. UP80CT-3246) is properly classified as an open-body truck per the Registration Certificate, a fact not disputed by the State, and therefore could not be treated as a light commercial vehicle as the Appellate Authority retrospectively asserted without supporting material or any clarification from the Transport Department. The record disclosed a discrepancy in the invoiced quantity but no finding of tax-evasion or culpable intent by the authorities below; accordingly the enforcement orders were held unsustainable in law.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 30.04.2019 and 22.02.2018 issued under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The court held that the vehicle (Reg. No. UP80CT-3246) is properly classified as an open-body truck per the Registration Certificate, a fact not disputed by the State, and therefore could not be treated as a light commercial vehicle as the Appellate Authority retrospectively asserted without supporting material or any clarification from the Transport Department. The record disclosed a discrepancy in the invoiced quantity but no finding of tax-evasion or culpable intent by the authorities below; accordingly the enforcement orders were held unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.