Income Declaration Scheme declarations can evidence share-capital sources, while round-tripped funds and cash-linked credits require further verificat...
Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Page of 4894
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 97862 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
