Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
The HC held that a writ petition can be entertained at the show cause notice stage where the notice is alleged to be without jurisdiction, and rejected the objection to maintainability on that basis. It further held that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act, 2017 cannot be initiated before determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74, and that a notice under Section 130 cannot rest on an alleged breach of record-keeping requirements under Section 35 alone. The impugned show cause notice and consequential confiscation order were therefore quashed, with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law and the refund claim left open.
The HC held that a writ petition can be entertained at the show cause notice stage where the notice is alleged to be without jurisdiction, and rejected the objection to maintainability on that basis. It further held that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act, 2017 cannot be initiated before determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74, and that a notice under Section 130 cannot rest on an alleged breach of record-keeping requirements under Section 35 alone. The impugned show cause notice and consequential confiscation order were therefore quashed, with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law and the refund claim left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.