TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petition dismissed challenging show-cause notice; Commissioner gave detailed reasons under IGST, CGST and JK GST, bank may reply</h1> <h3>Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Versus UOI and Ors.</h3> HC dismissed the petition challenging the show-cause notice. The court held the Commissioner provided detailed reasons invoking IGST, CGST and JK GST ... Challenge to SCN issued by the Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax - HELD THAT:- From a plain reading of the show-cause notice, it is found that the Commissioner concerned has given elaborate reasons for invoking provisions of the IGST Act, 2017, CGST Act, 2017 and J&K GST Act, 2017 to initiate an action against the petitioner-Bank. The petitioner-Bank is well within its right to reply to the show cause notice and while replying the show-cause notice, the petitioner-Bank is also free to take the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to issue a show-cause notice. The bank shall further be entitled to plead and demonstrate before the Commissioner that the transaction in question is neither covered under the CGST Act, 2017, J&K GST Act, 2017 or the IGST Act, 2017. It is not inclined to entertain this petition - petition dismissed. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh considered a petition filed by a bank challenging a show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax. The notice invoked provisions of various GST Acts and called for the bank to explain why action should not be taken against it. The court emphasized the bank's right to respond to the notice, challenge the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and demonstrate that the transaction in question may not fall under the relevant Acts. The court declined to entertain the petition but granted two weeks for the bank to reply to the notice. The Commissioner was directed to consider the reply and make a decision within four weeks, ensuring all petitioner contentions are addressed. No coercive action was permitted against the bank until a decision is reached.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
