Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
High Court exercised extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone delay in filing a statutory CGST appeal where the delay resulted from counsel/consultant accountant negligence, holding that a litigant should not be penalised for counsel's mistake; relief was granted and the writ petition allowed. The court emphasised that denial of opportunity to restore GST registration or pursue statutory remedies when the taxpayer proposes to comply (filing returns, paying taxes, interest and penalties) would frustrate the facilitative objective of the GST regime and impose disproportionate hardship, infringing Articles 14 and 21; therefore the appellate remedy was not rendered illusory.
High Court exercised extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone delay in filing a statutory CGST appeal where the delay resulted from counsel/consultant accountant negligence, holding that a litigant should not be penalised for counsel's mistake; relief was granted and the writ petition allowed. The court emphasised that denial of opportunity to restore GST registration or pursue statutory remedies when the taxpayer proposes to comply (filing returns, paying taxes, interest and penalties) would frustrate the facilitative objective of the GST regime and impose disproportionate hardship, infringing Articles 14 and 21; therefore the appellate remedy was not rendered illusory.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
