Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
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.