Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
A writ challenge to rejection of a GST refund was declined because the Court found no jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice warranting Article 226 interference. It held that there is a material distinction between lack of jurisdiction and an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, and that disputes over the correctness of factual findings, including adequacy of supporting refund documents, should be pursued in the statutory appellate forum. The Court also rejected the argument that the GSTAT was inefficacious, noting that the Tribunal had begun functioning and could hear appeals. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal, with all merits left open.
A writ challenge to rejection of a GST refund was declined because the Court found no jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice warranting Article 226 interference. It held that there is a material distinction between lack of jurisdiction and an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, and that disputes over the correctness of factual findings, including adequacy of supporting refund documents, should be pursued in the statutory appellate forum. The Court also rejected the argument that the GSTAT was inefficacious, noting that the Tribunal had begun functioning and could hear appeals. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal, with all merits left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
