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...
HC allowed the petition and quashed the show-cause notice dated 13.08.2021 issued by the Central Proper Officer and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2025. The court held that, by virtue of Section 6(1) and the bar in Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, the Central Proper Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 74 after the State Proper Officer had earlier commenced intelligence-based enforcement; summons under Section 70 did not amount to initiation of rival "proceedings." Consequently, the Central-originated proceedings are non est ab initio and the resultant order cannot be sustained. Petition allowed.
HC allowed the petition and quashed the show-cause notice dated 13.08.2021 issued by the Central Proper Officer and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2025. The court held that, by virtue of Section 6(1) and the bar in Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, the Central Proper Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 74 after the State Proper Officer had earlier commenced intelligence-based enforcement; summons under Section 70 did not amount to initiation of rival "proceedings." Consequently, the Central-originated proceedings are non est ab initio and the resultant order cannot be sustained. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
