Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
State GST authorities may initiate intelligence-based enforcement action under the GST regime even where the taxpayer is administratively assigned to the Central administration, so the challenge to jurisdiction failed. Disputes over classification and the assessing authority's finding of suppression for invoking Section 74 involved disputed facts and could not be examined in writ jurisdiction, so those objections had to be pursued before the statutory appellate authority under Section 107. The writ court was therefore correct in directing the taxpayer to avail the appeal remedy while leaving all grounds, including jurisdiction, open before the appellate forum.
State GST authorities may initiate intelligence-based enforcement action under the GST regime even where the taxpayer is administratively assigned to the Central administration, so the challenge to jurisdiction failed. Disputes over classification and the assessing authority's finding of suppression for invoking Section 74 involved disputed facts and could not be examined in writ jurisdiction, so those objections had to be pursued before the statutory appellate authority under Section 107. The writ court was therefore correct in directing the taxpayer to avail the appeal remedy while leaving all grounds, including jurisdiction, open before the appellate forum.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
