Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Co-operative deduction eligibility excludes refund and commercial-bank interest, while qualifying co-operative investments require entity-wise verific...
Enhanced tax rate on surrendered unexplained income applies prospectively, while cash-deposit telescoping requires verification of available surrender...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96000 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 dismissed the writ petition, holding the impugned adjudicatory order dated 27 January 2025 has become final due to the lapse of the statutory appeal period under Section 107 CGST; no sufficient explanation justified the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The court found no gross breach of natural justice: the Adjudicating Authority considered the petitioner's filed reply and documents, and acknowledgements evidenced filing though not incontrovertible proof of attendance. On the merits, the HC concluded the petitioner colluded with a third-party supplier to fraudulently avail ineligible ITC, failed to rebut the show-cause allegations or identify the supplier, and did not cooperate in proceedings. No exceptional circumstances warranted condonation of delay or exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding the impugned adjudicatory order dated 27 January 2025 has become final due to the lapse of the statutory appeal period under Section 107 CGST; no sufficient explanation justified the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The court found no gross breach of natural justice: the Adjudicating Authority considered the petitioner's filed reply and documents, and acknowledgements evidenced filing though not incontrovertible proof of attendance. On the merits, the HC concluded the petitioner colluded with a third-party supplier to fraudulently avail ineligible ITC, failed to rebut the show-cause allegations or identify the supplier, and did not cooperate in proceedings. No exceptional circumstances warranted condonation of delay or exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
