Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
The HC quashed cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and allowed the petition, holding the impugned quasi-judicial order unlawful for failure to disclose the adjudicating officer, failure to afford adequate notice and personal hearing, and consequent violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner's Article 19(1)(g) liberty to carry on business. The Court found the adjudicatory order bereft of application of mind and thus arbitrary, failing the Article 14 test. Because the petitioner only learned of the cancellation belatedly and was not afforded any opportunity to be heard, the prior dismissal on limitation grounds could not sustain the cancellation; the impugned orders are set aside.
The HC quashed cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and allowed the petition, holding the impugned quasi-judicial order unlawful for failure to disclose the adjudicating officer, failure to afford adequate notice and personal hearing, and consequent violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner's Article 19(1)(g) liberty to carry on business. The Court found the adjudicatory order bereft of application of mind and thus arbitrary, failing the Article 14 test. Because the petitioner only learned of the cancellation belatedly and was not afforded any opportunity to be heard, the prior dismissal on limitation grounds could not sustain the cancellation; the impugned orders are set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
