Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
HC held that notices issued to cancel petitioner-dealer's permission to pay tax at compounded rate under Section 8(f)(iv) KVAT for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were unsustainable. Proceedings initiated on 15.03.2018 were beyond the reasonable five-year limitation inferred for such action, rendering them time barred even independently of Section 25(1). HC further held Section 25AA(5) KVAT to be retrospectively applicable, as it was introduced after the VAT regime solely to govern such past situations; hence, only the suppressed turnover could be assessed at the scheduled rate without cancelling the compounding option for that year. Though initiation of cancellation proceedings was otherwise validly founded on intelligence reports, the impugned notices were quashed and the petition allowed.
HC held that notices issued to cancel petitioner-dealer's permission to pay tax at compounded rate under Section 8(f)(iv) KVAT for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were unsustainable. Proceedings initiated on 15.03.2018 were beyond the reasonable five-year limitation inferred for such action, rendering them time barred even independently of Section 25(1). HC further held Section 25AA(5) KVAT to be retrospectively applicable, as it was introduced after the VAT regime solely to govern such past situations; hence, only the suppressed turnover could be assessed at the scheduled rate without cancelling the compounding option for that year. Though initiation of cancellation proceedings was otherwise validly founded on intelligence reports, the impugned notices were quashed and the petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.