Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The High Court held that the revenue authorities committed grave illegality by not granting pre-decisional hearing to the appellants before blocking their Electronic Credit Ledger u/r 86A of CGST Rules, violating principles of natural justice. The Court observed that although Rule 86A doesn't expressly provide for pre-decisional hearing, it has to be read into the provision when serious civil consequences arise. The authorities passed orders solely based on communication from another officer without independently analyzing if Input Tax Credit was on account of fake invoices, which is impermissible. The orders lacked valid material constituting 'reasons to believe' and were passed on borrowed satisfaction, rendering them bald, vague, and unreasoned. Quashing the impugned orders, the Court allowed the appeals, holding that the mandatory requirements for invoking Rule 86A were not fulfilled by the revenue authorities.
The High Court held that the revenue authorities committed grave illegality by not granting pre-decisional hearing to the appellants before blocking their Electronic Credit Ledger u/r 86A of CGST Rules, violating principles of natural justice. The Court observed that although Rule 86A doesn't expressly provide for pre-decisional hearing, it has to be read into the provision when serious civil consequences arise. The authorities passed orders solely based on communication from another officer without independently analyzing if Input Tax Credit was on account of fake invoices, which is impermissible. The orders lacked valid material constituting 'reasons to believe' and were passed on borrowed satisfaction, rendering them bald, vague, and unreasoned. Quashing the impugned orders, the Court allowed the appeals, holding that the mandatory requirements for invoking Rule 86A were not fulfilled by the revenue authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
