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...
Pending constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the Court held that recovery of outstanding GST dues was governed by the existing CBIC circular and the statutory pre-deposit mechanism under section 112 of the CGST Act. It disposed of the writ petitions without examining the merits of the input tax credit dispute, and granted the petitioner liberty to secure continued stay of recovery by filing the prescribed undertaking before the jurisdictional proper officer and making the required pre-deposit within the time allowed. If that deposit was not made, the protection under the order would lapse and recovery of the balance demand could proceed.
Pending constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the Court held that recovery of outstanding GST dues was governed by the existing CBIC circular and the statutory pre-deposit mechanism under section 112 of the CGST Act. It disposed of the writ petitions without examining the merits of the input tax credit dispute, and granted the petitioner liberty to secure continued stay of recovery by filing the prescribed undertaking before the jurisdictional proper officer and making the required pre-deposit within the time allowed. If that deposit was not made, the protection under the order would lapse and recovery of the balance demand could proceed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.