Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
