Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC quashed the original and appellate orders under the CGST regime because a material factual claim regarding reversal and reclassification of input tax credit before the show cause notice had not been properly considered. The petitioner had raised the point earlier, but it was rejected for want of documentary support; however, the respondent later confirmed the correctness of that submission before the Court. On that limited basis, the Court held that the foundation of the impugned orders required reconsideration and remanded the matter to the adjudicatory authority for fresh decision expeditiously, leaving all merits open.
The HC quashed the original and appellate orders under the CGST regime because a material factual claim regarding reversal and reclassification of input tax credit before the show cause notice had not been properly considered. The petitioner had raised the point earlier, but it was rejected for want of documentary support; however, the respondent later confirmed the correctness of that submission before the Court. On that limited basis, the Court held that the foundation of the impugned orders required reconsideration and remanded the matter to the adjudicatory authority for fresh decision expeditiously, leaving all merits open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.