Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
