Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
