Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Extended limitation under Section 74 was treated as justified where the petitioner failed to fully respond to the written requisition, the DRC-01A intimation and the DRC-01 notices, which was treated as suppression of facts. The text further notes that, when the department proceeds on the petitioner's own records and detects non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund or wrongful ITC, Section 74 can be sustained. For two assessment years, the proceedings were said to be within limitation in any event, and even a mistaken Section 74 invocation could be recast under Section 73 through Section 75(2) if a proper reply is filed. Ex parte orders were remitted de novo on conditional compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.