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...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 95999 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
