Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
A show cause notice under the CGST Act cannot club multiple financial years into one proceeding, because liability, annual return compliance and limitation operate separately for each tax period. A single notice combining distinct years would impermissibly aggregate different due dates and limitation consequences; the impugned notice was therefore quashed. The Court also held that, within the State, its own later decisions on this point were binding, and the contrary Delhi High Court view could not prevail. The Supreme Court's in limine dismissal of the challenge to that view did not attract merger and did not displace the binding effect of the Court's decisions. Liberty was reserved to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.
A show cause notice under the CGST Act cannot club multiple financial years into one proceeding, because liability, annual return compliance and limitation operate separately for each tax period. A single notice combining distinct years would impermissibly aggregate different due dates and limitation consequences; the impugned notice was therefore quashed. The Court also held that, within the State, its own later decisions on this point were binding, and the contrary Delhi High Court view could not prevail. The Supreme Court's in limine dismissal of the challenge to that view did not attract merger and did not displace the binding effect of the Court's decisions. Liberty was reserved to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
