Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
