Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration is permissible only if the taxpayer is specifically put on notice that such retrospective action is proposed and is given the statutory minimum time to respond. Here, the original show cause notice did not propose retrospective cancellation, and the later communication introducing that proposal did not comply with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules because no seven working days were allowed from service of notice. The same-day retrospective cancellation was therefore contrary to Rule 22 and violative of fair procedure. The HC set aside the cancellation order, while leaving the authorities free to begin fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration is permissible only if the taxpayer is specifically put on notice that such retrospective action is proposed and is given the statutory minimum time to respond. Here, the original show cause notice did not propose retrospective cancellation, and the later communication introducing that proposal did not comply with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules because no seven working days were allowed from service of notice. The same-day retrospective cancellation was therefore contrary to Rule 22 and violative of fair procedure. The HC set aside the cancellation order, while leaving the authorities free to begin fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
