Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
The HC set aside the impugned demand notices under DRC-01 and held the reasoning insufficient to sustain a tax demand based solely on alleged suppression in GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9C; the respondents must first adduce cogent evidence of turnover suppression before issuing demand. The Court recognised that disproportionate inward versus outward supplies might stem from excess availing of Input Tax Credit, warranting further enquiry. The matter is remitted to the respondent for fresh adjudication; the petitioner is permitted to file a reply with supporting documents. Petition disposed of by remand with liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
The HC set aside the impugned demand notices under DRC-01 and held the reasoning insufficient to sustain a tax demand based solely on alleged suppression in GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9C; the respondents must first adduce cogent evidence of turnover suppression before issuing demand. The Court recognised that disproportionate inward versus outward supplies might stem from excess availing of Input Tax Credit, warranting further enquiry. The matter is remitted to the respondent for fresh adjudication; the petitioner is permitted to file a reply with supporting documents. Petition disposed of by remand with liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.