Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
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 4816 
Join Channel 
