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...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging imposition of penalty under s.122 CGST, finding fraudulent availment of input tax credit through creation and operation of non-existent bogus firms by the petitioner and associates. The court held that matters involving complex transactions and voluminous evidence arising from investigatory findings are ordinarily unsuitable for writ relief and are more appropriately addressed through statutory appellate remedies; the impugned order is appealable under s.107 CGST. The HC further upheld the validity of Circular No.254/11/2025 appointing the proper officer, observing the Additional Commissioner was empowered to issue the show cause notice under s.122. Writ relief was refused and the petition dismissed.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging imposition of penalty under s.122 CGST, finding fraudulent availment of input tax credit through creation and operation of non-existent bogus firms by the petitioner and associates. The court held that matters involving complex transactions and voluminous evidence arising from investigatory findings are ordinarily unsuitable for writ relief and are more appropriately addressed through statutory appellate remedies; the impugned order is appealable under s.107 CGST. The HC further upheld the validity of Circular No.254/11/2025 appointing the proper officer, observing the Additional Commissioner was empowered to issue the show cause notice under s.122. Writ relief was refused and the petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
