Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
In GST proceedings, invocation of the extended period under Section 74 depends on jurisdictional or foundational facts and a prima facie view, based on available material, that non-payment, short payment, wrongful input tax credit, fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression exists. The notice should ordinarily disclose the basis for alleging the mental element, but prior communication of those grounds through scrutiny, audit, inspection or pre-notice intimation can satisfy the requirement, so a detailed notice is not invalid merely because it repeats earlier allegations. Notices were upheld where the basis had already been disclosed, while an inadequately particularised order was remitted for fresh consideration under Section 73, with possible recourse to Section 74 if information remained unprovided.
In GST proceedings, invocation of the extended period under Section 74 depends on jurisdictional or foundational facts and a prima facie view, based on available material, that non-payment, short payment, wrongful input tax credit, fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression exists. The notice should ordinarily disclose the basis for alleging the mental element, but prior communication of those grounds through scrutiny, audit, inspection or pre-notice intimation can satisfy the requirement, so a detailed notice is not invalid merely because it repeats earlier allegations. Notices were upheld where the basis had already been disclosed, while an inadequately particularised order was remitted for fresh consideration under Section 73, with possible recourse to Section 74 if information remained unprovided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
