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 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
