https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467086 The note addresses two issues: whether the Principal Commissioner had jurisdiction to cancel registration despite a Board notification allocating territorial and subject-matter authority to a prescribed authority, and whether the amended statutory regime introducing "specified violations" (effective 01.04.2022) permits retrospective cancellations. It concludes that territorial jurisdiction under the Board notification remained with the prescribed authority and absent express reallocation the Principal Commissioner lacked jurisdiction, and that the specified-violation provisions operate prospectively so cannot be invoked to cancel registrations for periods before the amendment; consequential cancellation orders are quashed. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Mar 2026 12:56:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467086 The note addresses two issues: whether the Principal Commissioner had jurisdiction to cancel registration despite a Board notification allocating territorial and subject-matter authority to a prescribed authority, and whether the amended statutory regime introducing "specified violations" (effective 01.04.2022) permits retrospective cancellations. It concludes that territorial jurisdiction under the Board notification remained with the prescribed authority and absent express reallocation the Principal Commissioner lacked jurisdiction, and that the specified-violation provisions operate prospectively so cannot be invoked to cancel registrations for periods before the amendment; consequential cancellation orders are quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467086