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 ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 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" ?
A Joint Commissioner who had issued the show-cause notice before a later circular could validly pass the Order-in-Original imposing penalty for fraudulent availment and passing of ITC, since the proceedings had been initiated under Section 74 and the same officer had jurisdiction on the date of adjudication. The Court held that Section 160 of the CGST Act cured mere procedural defects or omissions where the proceedings were otherwise in substance in conformity with the Act. It also noted that the petitioner had not effectively contested jurisdiction at the notice stage or participated in the proceedings, so the objection was untenable. The writ challenge failed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
A Joint Commissioner who had issued the show-cause notice before a later circular could validly pass the Order-in-Original imposing penalty for fraudulent availment and passing of ITC, since the proceedings had been initiated under Section 74 and the same officer had jurisdiction on the date of adjudication. The Court held that Section 160 of the CGST Act cured mere procedural defects or omissions where the proceedings were otherwise in substance in conformity with the Act. It also noted that the petitioner had not effectively contested jurisdiction at the notice stage or participated in the proceedings, so the objection was untenable. The writ challenge failed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.