Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Challenge to blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A was rejected where inspection and recorded statements indicated availment of credit on disputed invoices; the impugned blocking was held to fall within the regulatory scheme and not amenable to interference. A jurisdictional objection that a subordinate officer effected the block was dismissed because blocking was shown to be authorised by senior officers. The court nevertheless granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and directed that the concerned officer hear the petitioner and decide the merits expeditiously, preferably within thirty days.
Challenge to blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A was rejected where inspection and recorded statements indicated availment of credit on disputed invoices; the impugned blocking was held to fall within the regulatory scheme and not amenable to interference. A jurisdictional objection that a subordinate officer effected the block was dismissed because blocking was shown to be authorised by senior officers. The court nevertheless granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and directed that the concerned officer hear the petitioner and decide the merits expeditiously, preferably within thirty days.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.