Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Writ jurisdiction remained available because the challenge went to the very competence of the officer who passed the GST adjudication order, and an alternative remedy does not bar interference where the impugned action is alleged to be without jurisdiction. Reading Section 2(91) of the CGST Act with Section 6 of the Union Territory GST Act, the HC held that a State tax officer can act as a proper officer only subject to notification issued on the Council's recommendation. As no such recommendation existed authorising the officer concerned, the adjudication was invalid and was quashed, with liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Writ jurisdiction remained available because the challenge went to the very competence of the officer who passed the GST adjudication order, and an alternative remedy does not bar interference where the impugned action is alleged to be without jurisdiction. Reading Section 2(91) of the CGST Act with Section 6 of the Union Territory GST Act, the HC held that a State tax officer can act as a proper officer only subject to notification issued on the Council's recommendation. As no such recommendation existed authorising the officer concerned, the adjudication was invalid and was quashed, with liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
