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...
The Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the show cause notice (SCN) issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act on jurisdictional grounds. The petitioner failed to submit a reply to the SCN, which emanated from a GST audit report after examining records for specific periods. The objection regarding the officer's lack of jurisdiction over the petitioner's business in other States was misconceived. The Court held that officers appointed u/ss 4, 5, and 6 of the CGST Act have the same powers, and a State GST Officer is authorized as a proper officer under the Act. Once an SCN is issued by a State GST Officer, no other officer from another State can initiate proceedings regarding tax evasion, wrongful input tax credit, or other issues u/s 74. The Chandigarh authority had the power to issue the SCN concerning the company's dealings in other States, and there was no jurisdictional error. The petitioner is free to raise objections and arguments in its reply to the SCN's contents. The petition was dismissed.
The Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the show cause notice (SCN) issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act on jurisdictional grounds. The petitioner failed to submit a reply to the SCN, which emanated from a GST audit report after examining records for specific periods. The objection regarding the officer's lack of jurisdiction over the petitioner's business in other States was misconceived. The Court held that officers appointed u/ss 4, 5, and 6 of the CGST Act have the same powers, and a State GST Officer is authorized as a proper officer under the Act. Once an SCN is issued by a State GST Officer, no other officer from another State can initiate proceedings regarding tax evasion, wrongful input tax credit, or other issues u/s 74. The Chandigarh authority had the power to issue the SCN concerning the company's dealings in other States, and there was no jurisdictional error. The petitioner is free to raise objections and arguments in its reply to the SCN's contents. The petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
