Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
