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 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.