Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 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" ?
HC examined the challenge to a SCN issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act for recovery of tax, interest and penalty, where the petitioner contended absence of allegations of fraud and non-fulfilment of statutory ingredients. HC reiterated that though writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 can be invoked even at the SCN stage, such interference is warranted only when the notice is shown to be null for want of jurisdiction or issued by an incompetent authority. Finding no inherent lack of jurisdiction or incompetence in the issuing authority, HC declined to entertain the petition against the SCN. Petition was disposed of, granting petitioner up to 15 days to file reply, and directing adjudication with due hearing.
HC examined the challenge to a SCN issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act for recovery of tax, interest and penalty, where the petitioner contended absence of allegations of fraud and non-fulfilment of statutory ingredients. HC reiterated that though writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 can be invoked even at the SCN stage, such interference is warranted only when the notice is shown to be null for want of jurisdiction or issued by an incompetent authority. Finding no inherent lack of jurisdiction or incompetence in the issuing authority, HC declined to entertain the petition against the SCN. Petition was disposed of, granting petitioner up to 15 days to file reply, and directing adjudication with due hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.