Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
A demand based on belated availment of input tax credit under Section 16(4) could not stand unchanged after the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) into the GST enactments from 01.07.2017. The Court found that the very defect relied on in the show cause notice and impugned order had been cured by the retrospective amendment, so the matter required reconsideration on merits. The impugned order was quashed and the case was remitted for fresh adjudication, with liberty to the taxpayer to file a proper reply with supporting documents.
A demand based on belated availment of input tax credit under Section 16(4) could not stand unchanged after the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) into the GST enactments from 01.07.2017. The Court found that the very defect relied on in the show cause notice and impugned order had been cured by the retrospective amendment, so the matter required reconsideration on merits. The impugned order was quashed and the case was remitted for fresh adjudication, with liberty to the taxpayer to file a proper reply with supporting documents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.