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 adjudged that the Petitioner procured Input Tax Credit from fraudulent suppliers and deliberately misrepresented the nature and status of his business to mislead the Court and evade departmental proceedings. The HC upheld cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration effective 30 June 2025, found the petition unsustainable, and dismissed the petition. The Court imposed punitive costs of Rs. 5,00,000 on the Petitioner and observed that more severe proceedings could be initiated; however, further departmental action already initiated will proceed and the Court refrained from taking additional punitive measures pending those processes. The HC's order thus resolves the dispute against the Petitioner and preserves administrative remedies.
The HC adjudged that the Petitioner procured Input Tax Credit from fraudulent suppliers and deliberately misrepresented the nature and status of his business to mislead the Court and evade departmental proceedings. The HC upheld cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration effective 30 June 2025, found the petition unsustainable, and dismissed the petition. The Court imposed punitive costs of Rs. 5,00,000 on the Petitioner and observed that more severe proceedings could be initiated; however, further departmental action already initiated will proceed and the Court refrained from taking additional punitive measures pending those processes. The HC's order thus resolves the dispute against the Petitioner and preserves administrative remedies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.