Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
The HC declined to quash a GST show cause notice at the writ stage, holding that interference under Article 226 is confined to exceptional cases where the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or facially illegal. The earlier classification ruling in the petitioner's own case did not conclude the present demand because the notice rested on a different foundation and on material gathered in enquiry, including the petitioner's documents. Questions on bifurcation, supply character, applicable rate and limitation were matters for reply before the proper officer, not writ review. The petition was dismissed with liberty to respond to the notice within four weeks, and all merits objections were kept open.
The HC declined to quash a GST show cause notice at the writ stage, holding that interference under Article 226 is confined to exceptional cases where the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or facially illegal. The earlier classification ruling in the petitioner's own case did not conclude the present demand because the notice rested on a different foundation and on material gathered in enquiry, including the petitioner's documents. Questions on bifurcation, supply character, applicable rate and limitation were matters for reply before the proper officer, not writ review. The petition was dismissed with liberty to respond to the notice within four weeks, and all merits objections were kept open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.