ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
The HC dismissed the petition challenging an ex parte order under Section 74 UPGST Act, holding the challenge misconceived and liable to be rejected. The court found the appellant pursued successive writs to evade the pre-deposit required by Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, failed to seek exemption from pre-deposit before the appellate authority and the apex court, and did not prosecute the statutory appeal within limitations. Applying principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the HC held the remedy of appeal and exemption were always available and deliberately not pursued; accordingly the petition is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and procedural abuse.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging an ex parte order under Section 74 UPGST Act, holding the challenge misconceived and liable to be rejected. The court found the appellant pursued successive writs to evade the pre-deposit required by Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, failed to seek exemption from pre-deposit before the appellate authority and the apex court, and did not prosecute the statutory appeal within limitations. Applying principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the HC held the remedy of appeal and exemption were always available and deliberately not pursued; accordingly the petition is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and procedural abuse.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
