Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Adjudication proceeded on a basis different from the grounds specified in the show-cause notice, breaching Section 75(7) of the GST Act which proscribes confirming demand on any ground other than those stated; consequence: the impugned orders could not stand. The adjudicating authority relied on invoice treatment under forward charge to treat supplies as taxable under reverse charge, a new basis not pleaded in the notice; consequence: that reasoning was found improper. Reliance on GST back-office data may deprive affected persons of effective opportunity to reply; consequence: proceedings must be reheard after affording a proper opportunity and reconsideration, leading to remand of the matter.
Adjudication proceeded on a basis different from the grounds specified in the show-cause notice, breaching Section 75(7) of the GST Act which proscribes confirming demand on any ground other than those stated; consequence: the impugned orders could not stand. The adjudicating authority relied on invoice treatment under forward charge to treat supplies as taxable under reverse charge, a new basis not pleaded in the notice; consequence: that reasoning was found improper. Reliance on GST back-office data may deprive affected persons of effective opportunity to reply; consequence: proceedings must be reheard after affording a proper opportunity and reconsideration, leading to remand of the matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
