Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Section 74(5) of the GST law read with Rule 142(1A) confers a statutory pre-show-cause opportunity to settle the proposed demand by paying tax, interest and reduced penalty, and the Rule must be read consistently with that right. The High Court held that use of the word "may" in Rule 142(1A) cannot defeat the mandatory effect of the principal legislation. Non-issuance of DRC-01A does not by itself make DRC-01 without jurisdiction, but where the noticee invokes the statutory benefit in reply, the assessee cannot be denied the option to discharge the demand. As the petitioner raised that plea, the adjudication was to stand satisfied on payment within the time granted.
Section 74(5) of the GST law read with Rule 142(1A) confers a statutory pre-show-cause opportunity to settle the proposed demand by paying tax, interest and reduced penalty, and the Rule must be read consistently with that right. The High Court held that use of the word "may" in Rule 142(1A) cannot defeat the mandatory effect of the principal legislation. Non-issuance of DRC-01A does not by itself make DRC-01 without jurisdiction, but where the noticee invokes the statutory benefit in reply, the assessee cannot be denied the option to discharge the demand. As the petitioner raised that plea, the adjudication was to stand satisfied on payment within the time granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.