Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4789
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
