Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 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 held the retrospective cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration invalid because the impugned cancellation order dated 14 Nov 2020 bore no signature or digital signature as mandated by Rule 26(3) CGST Rules and the Respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving compliance; principles of natural justice were thereby infringed. The court found no evidence or sworn statement of a signed/digitally signed order, rejected inferential contentions, and declared the unsigned order to be no order in law until properly signed. Consequentially, the Appellate Authority's 28 Feb 2025 dismissal on limitation grounds shall not survive. Appeal disposed.
The HC held the retrospective cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration invalid because the impugned cancellation order dated 14 Nov 2020 bore no signature or digital signature as mandated by Rule 26(3) CGST Rules and the Respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving compliance; principles of natural justice were thereby infringed. The court found no evidence or sworn statement of a signed/digitally signed order, rejected inferential contentions, and declared the unsigned order to be no order in law until properly signed. Consequentially, the Appellate Authority's 28 Feb 2025 dismissal on limitation grounds shall not survive. Appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
