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...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
HC held that, consequent to the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules w.e.f. 08.10.2024 and its inconsistency with s.16 of the IGST Act, no proceedings can validly continue under the said rule. All pending SCNs, consequential orders and appeals founded on Rule 96(10) were held to be non-sustainable, as the omission must operate to the benefit of all assessees in ongoing matters. In the present case, proceedings were only at the summons stage; hence, the HC quashed the summons, the SCN and all subsequent orders arising therefrom. The petitioner, having already made the additional 10% pre-deposit while pursuing appellate remedies, is entitled to refund/relief without being subjected to any further action under the omitted Rule 96(10). The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
HC held that, consequent to the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules w.e.f. 08.10.2024 and its inconsistency with s.16 of the IGST Act, no proceedings can validly continue under the said rule. All pending SCNs, consequential orders and appeals founded on Rule 96(10) were held to be non-sustainable, as the omission must operate to the benefit of all assessees in ongoing matters. In the present case, proceedings were only at the summons stage; hence, the HC quashed the summons, the SCN and all subsequent orders arising therefrom. The petitioner, having already made the additional 10% pre-deposit while pursuing appellate remedies, is entitled to refund/relief without being subjected to any further action under the omitted Rule 96(10). The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
