Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3461 to 3480 of 96536 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 allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, holding the assessing authorities exceeded jurisdiction in initiating proceedings under Section 73. On review of original records the court found the petitioner to be a work-contractor awarded contracts by a state agency for the relevant assessment years, and that payments were effected after GST implementation; however, that temporal change did not confer jurisdiction on GST authorities to levy tax, interest or penalty for pre-GST transactions merely on a GSTR-3B/Form-26AS mismatch. The HC held the proper course was notification to the pre-GST assessing authority under the applicable indirect tax law, not initiation of Section 73 proceedings under the GST regime.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, holding the assessing authorities exceeded jurisdiction in initiating proceedings under Section 73. On review of original records the court found the petitioner to be a work-contractor awarded contracts by a state agency for the relevant assessment years, and that payments were effected after GST implementation; however, that temporal change did not confer jurisdiction on GST authorities to levy tax, interest or penalty for pre-GST transactions merely on a GSTR-3B/Form-26AS mismatch. The HC held the proper course was notification to the pre-GST assessing authority under the applicable indirect tax law, not initiation of Section 73 proceedings under the GST regime.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
