Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
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 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
