Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 petition at the motion stage, holding that under Section 79(1)(a) of the CGST Act the revenue was entitled to recover tax dues from amounts owing to the taxpayer; an assessment dated 25.02.2025 fixed a demand of Rs. 10,32,672, for which 30 days' payment was granted but unpaid, and Rs. 2,87,914 was lawfully debited from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger on 19.06.2025. The petitioner's rectification application was rejected and the appeal instituted thereafter did not attract any stay; in the absence of any interlocutory relief the post-assessment recovery was held neither perverse nor illegal.
The HC dismissed the petition at the motion stage, holding that under Section 79(1)(a) of the CGST Act the revenue was entitled to recover tax dues from amounts owing to the taxpayer; an assessment dated 25.02.2025 fixed a demand of Rs. 10,32,672, for which 30 days' payment was granted but unpaid, and Rs. 2,87,914 was lawfully debited from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger on 19.06.2025. The petitioner's rectification application was rejected and the appeal instituted thereafter did not attract any stay; in the absence of any interlocutory relief the post-assessment recovery was held neither perverse nor illegal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.