Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
The dominant issue was whether the demand for July 2017 to March 2018 could be confirmed by relying on an amended Rule 30(4) of the SEZ Rules and a subsequent circular. Since both the amendment (effective from 21.09.2018) and the circular (dated 12.09.2019) operated prospectively, their application to the earlier tax period was contrary to the governing rules and records, rendering the demand without jurisdiction or authority of law; the impugned order was set aside. Although an appeal under Section 107 of the KGST Act existed, writ jurisdiction was exercised because the order suffered from patent lack of jurisdiction; the petition was allowed - HC
The dominant issue was whether the demand for July 2017 to March 2018 could be confirmed by relying on an amended Rule 30(4) of the SEZ Rules and a subsequent circular. Since both the amendment (effective from 21.09.2018) and the circular (dated 12.09.2019) operated prospectively, their application to the earlier tax period was contrary to the governing rules and records, rendering the demand without jurisdiction or authority of law; the impugned order was set aside. Although an appeal under Section 107 of the KGST Act existed, writ jurisdiction was exercised because the order suffered from patent lack of jurisdiction; the petition was allowed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
