Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
