Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1641 to 1660 of 96508 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dealt with a partial rejection of a waiver claim linked to belated filing of GSTR-9 and noted the absence of a specific appellate remedy against the waiver order. As the petitioner had not appeared despite notice, the Court held that one further opportunity should be granted to file a reply and supporting documents before the same authority. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, leaving all factual and legal contentions open. No finding was rendered on the merits of the waiver claim under Rule 164(10), and the request was to be reconsidered in light of the clarifications in Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST.
The High Court dealt with a partial rejection of a waiver claim linked to belated filing of GSTR-9 and noted the absence of a specific appellate remedy against the waiver order. As the petitioner had not appeared despite notice, the Court held that one further opportunity should be granted to file a reply and supporting documents before the same authority. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, leaving all factual and legal contentions open. No finding was rendered on the merits of the waiver claim under Rule 164(10), and the request was to be reconsidered in light of the clarifications in Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.