Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Challenge to invocation of the extended period under s.74 of the TNGST Act was considered in light of an unclear show-cause notice and the alleged mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that proper adjudication on limitation and tax liability required the taxpayer to furnish a comprehensive reply on merits along with legal submissions, which had not been effectively done, warranting a fresh determination. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the proper officer for reconsideration, subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax from the taxpayer's electronic cash ledger within 30 days. - HC
Challenge to invocation of the extended period under s.74 of the TNGST Act was considered in light of an unclear show-cause notice and the alleged mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that proper adjudication on limitation and tax liability required the taxpayer to furnish a comprehensive reply on merits along with legal submissions, which had not been effectively done, warranting a fresh determination. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the proper officer for reconsideration, subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax from the taxpayer's electronic cash ledger within 30 days. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
