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...
A writ petition against a show cause notice was entertained because the matter had been pending for years, pleadings were complete, no further factual enquiry was needed, and the notice itself showed that the amount collected as GST matched the amount paid to the Government. On those admitted facts, the Court treated the issue as a pure question of law on the scope of Section 76 of the CGST Act and held that the provision could not be used to demand tax again merely because payment was made through another GST registration of the same assessee in the same State. Section 76 targets non-remittance of tax collected, not double taxation where the revenue has already received the amount.
A writ petition against a show cause notice was entertained because the matter had been pending for years, pleadings were complete, no further factual enquiry was needed, and the notice itself showed that the amount collected as GST matched the amount paid to the Government. On those admitted facts, the Court treated the issue as a pure question of law on the scope of Section 76 of the CGST Act and held that the provision could not be used to demand tax again merely because payment was made through another GST registration of the same assessee in the same State. Section 76 targets non-remittance of tax collected, not double taxation where the revenue has already received the amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.