Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 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 petitions challenging the show cause notice on GST classification, holding them non-maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy. It was held that the proper Adjudicating Authority had issued the notice, and the case did not disclose either lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice to justify writ interference at the notice stage. The Petitioners were directed to submit their replies, raise all permissible legal and factual defences, and produce all relevant material before the Adjudicating Authority, which is best suited to undertake the necessary factual inquiry and determine the correct classification. Consequently, the HC declined to bypass the appellate hierarchy and refused to quash the show cause notice, dismissing the petitions.
The HC dismissed the writ petitions challenging the show cause notice on GST classification, holding them non-maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy. It was held that the proper Adjudicating Authority had issued the notice, and the case did not disclose either lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice to justify writ interference at the notice stage. The Petitioners were directed to submit their replies, raise all permissible legal and factual defences, and produce all relevant material before the Adjudicating Authority, which is best suited to undertake the necessary factual inquiry and determine the correct classification. Consequently, the HC declined to bypass the appellate hierarchy and refused to quash the show cause notice, dismissing the petitions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
