Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
A High Court quashed a show cause notice for misapplying the CGST/KGST Act. It held that Section 52 could not be invoked where the e-commerce operator did not collect consideration and was not shown to be collecting tax on behalf of suppliers; the notice also wrongly treated a separate affiliated entity's services as the petitioner's own. Section 17(2) was held inapplicable because the notice did not establish any mixed use for taxable and exempt supplies or any exempt supply attracting reversal of input tax credit. Section 74 could not be invoked without specific allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax. The writ was therefore maintainable and the notice was quashed.
A High Court quashed a show cause notice for misapplying the CGST/KGST Act. It held that Section 52 could not be invoked where the e-commerce operator did not collect consideration and was not shown to be collecting tax on behalf of suppliers; the notice also wrongly treated a separate affiliated entity's services as the petitioner's own. Section 17(2) was held inapplicable because the notice did not establish any mixed use for taxable and exempt supplies or any exempt supply attracting reversal of input tax credit. Section 74 could not be invoked without specific allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax. The writ was therefore maintainable and the notice was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
