Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
