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...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96509 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Under the GST regime, intelligence-based enforcement may be initiated by either Central or State tax authorities even where the taxpayer is registered with the other administration, so the State authority's jurisdiction to begin proceedings and issue orders was upheld. Classification disputes and objections to invocation of Section 74 involved disputed factual questions and were not entertained in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Those grounds, including the plea that the reply was not properly considered, were held to be matters for statutory appeal, and the writ petitions were dismissed with liberty to appeal.
Under the GST regime, intelligence-based enforcement may be initiated by either Central or State tax authorities even where the taxpayer is registered with the other administration, so the State authority's jurisdiction to begin proceedings and issue orders was upheld. Classification disputes and objections to invocation of Section 74 involved disputed factual questions and were not entertained in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Those grounds, including the plea that the reply was not properly considered, were held to be matters for statutory appeal, and the writ petitions were dismissed with liberty to appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.