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...
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the impugned assessment order violated Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and principles of natural justice by failing to serve a prior show-cause notice; the Court adhered to its consistent jurisprudence that non-issuance of the requisite notice vitiates the assessment process. The HC set aside Order-in-Original No.70/2024-25-GST dated 25.02.2025 and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for completion of assessment in accordance with law after issuance of the necessary notice. The period from the date of the impugned order until receipt of the HC order is excluded for limitation. Petition allowed by remand.
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the impugned assessment order violated Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and principles of natural justice by failing to serve a prior show-cause notice; the Court adhered to its consistent jurisprudence that non-issuance of the requisite notice vitiates the assessment process. The HC set aside Order-in-Original No.70/2024-25-GST dated 25.02.2025 and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for completion of assessment in accordance with law after issuance of the necessary notice. The period from the date of the impugned order until receipt of the HC order is excluded for limitation. Petition allowed by remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
