Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
A waiver application under Notification No. 21/2024-Central Tax was treated by the High Court as subject to a directory, not mandatory, three-month filing period because the notification used the word may. The rejection of the application solely on the ground of delay was therefore based on an erroneous interpretation of law. The Court quashed the rejection in FORM GST SPL-07 and directed the authority to reconsider the waiver application on merits in accordance with law, while keeping the show cause notice, summary notice and order in original in abeyance until that reconsideration.
A waiver application under Notification No. 21/2024-Central Tax was treated by the High Court as subject to a directory, not mandatory, three-month filing period because the notification used the word may. The rejection of the application solely on the ground of delay was therefore based on an erroneous interpretation of law. The Court quashed the rejection in FORM GST SPL-07 and directed the authority to reconsider the waiver application on merits in accordance with law, while keeping the show cause notice, summary notice and order in original in abeyance until that reconsideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
