Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
