Bogus-purchase additions are limited to embedded profit where corresponding sales are accepted, while accommodation-entry information can support reas...
Provisional attachment fails without material showing likely concealment, transfer, or dealing that could frustrate confiscation of mortgaged property...
Works-contract goods transfers remain outside service tax, while qualifying lift irrigation works receive exemption and extended limitation cannot app...
Customs assessment information portal centralises rulings and guidance to promote consistent classification, valuation, transparency and informed comp...
Page of 4913
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1641 to 1660 of 98250 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The impugned show cause notice (SCN) did not contain any...
GST registration cancellation order & SCN set aside due to vague allegations violating natural justice. Cryptic notice can't be basis for cancellation.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The impugned show cause notice (SCN) did not contain any specific allegations against the petitioner regarding issuance of invoices without supply of goods, merely referring to Rule 21(g) and stating violation of Rule 86B. The SCN lacked details of invoices allegedly not covered by supply of goods, violating principles of natural justice as the noticee could not respond to vague allegations. The impugned order cancelling GST registration with retrospective effect went beyond the scope of the SCN. The High Court set aside the cancellation order and SCN, directing restoration of the petitioner's GST registration forthwith, as the cryptic allegations could not be the basis for cancellation.
The impugned show cause notice (SCN) did not contain any specific allegations against the petitioner regarding issuance of invoices without supply of goods, merely referring to Rule 21(g) and stating violation of Rule 86B. The SCN lacked details of invoices allegedly not covered by supply of goods, violating principles of natural justice as the noticee could not respond to vague allegations. The impugned order cancelling GST registration with retrospective effect went beyond the scope of the SCN. The High Court set aside the cancellation order and SCN, directing restoration of the petitioner's GST registration forthwith, as the cryptic allegations could not be the basis for cancellation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.