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 ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 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 quashed the impugned Recovery Notice dated 15.09.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent under s.79(1)(c)(i) of the respective GST enactments, holding that the alleged arrears had been largely discharged by the Petitioner through payments between 21.10.2023 and 11.03.2024 (and subsequently), leaving no subsisting liability as asserted in the notice; the Court noted earlier orders quantifying liabilities and a small additional interest demand for a prior period. The 1st Respondent was granted liberty to issue a fresh recovery notice under s.79(1)(c)(i) if bona fide other arrears remain outstanding. Petition stands disposed of.
The HC quashed the impugned Recovery Notice dated 15.09.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent under s.79(1)(c)(i) of the respective GST enactments, holding that the alleged arrears had been largely discharged by the Petitioner through payments between 21.10.2023 and 11.03.2024 (and subsequently), leaving no subsisting liability as asserted in the notice; the Court noted earlier orders quantifying liabilities and a small additional interest demand for a prior period. The 1st Respondent was granted liberty to issue a fresh recovery notice under s.79(1)(c)(i) if bona fide other arrears remain outstanding. Petition stands disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
