Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
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 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
