Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Expiry of statutory limitation for challenging a GST order was decisive where the petitioner failed to substantiate lawful availment of input tax credit and did not refute reliance on invoices from a supplier alleged to issue fake invoices; consequence: the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication. The adjudicating authority is directed to decide on merits subject to a protective condition requiring the taxpayer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax from its electronic cash register within thirty days, balancing revenue protection with the taxpayers opportunity for merits adjudication.
Expiry of statutory limitation for challenging a GST order was decisive where the petitioner failed to substantiate lawful availment of input tax credit and did not refute reliance on invoices from a supplier alleged to issue fake invoices; consequence: the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication. The adjudicating authority is directed to decide on merits subject to a protective condition requiring the taxpayer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax from its electronic cash register within thirty days, balancing revenue protection with the taxpayers opportunity for merits adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.