Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The High Court examined whether proper show cause notices were issued before passing impugned orders u/s 73(9) of the State GST Act. It held that the summary of show cause notice along with tax determination cannot substitute a valid show cause notice initiating proceedings u/s 73. The Court opined that the impugned orders were contrary to Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a) as they were passed without issuing a proper show cause notice. Regarding the determination of tax and order attached to the summary, the Court held that as per Sections 73(3) and 73(9), only the proper officer can issue show cause notice, statement, and order. Section 2(91) defines the proper officer. Failure to authenticate by the proper officer renders the documents ineffective. The Court stated that unless Rules are amended, Rule 26(3) authentication must be followed when the proper officer issues notices/orders. On conformity with Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice, the Court held that when the statute mandates an opportunity of hearing, it must be provided. Merely mentioning the reply date in the summary without other hearing details like date, time, and venue is insufficient. If no reply is filed, passing an adverse order without a hearing opportunity would render Section 75(4) redundant. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the pet.