Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
