Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
The High Court held that the petitioner's contention of not having the power to recover amounts during the pendency of an investigation that commenced prior to the issuance of a show cause notice u/ss 67 and 70 is valid. The payments made by the petitioner cannot be considered self-ascertainment u/s 74(5) of the CGST Act, as the element of voluntariness is absent. Since the adjudication is still to conclude and a notice u/s 74(1) has already been issued, the question of going back to the stage of Section 74(5) does not arise. The petition is allowed in part, declaring the recovery of tax from the petitioner as illegal and directing a refund within four weeks, along with applicable interest.
The High Court held that the petitioner's contention of not having the power to recover amounts during the pendency of an investigation that commenced prior to the issuance of a show cause notice u/ss 67 and 70 is valid. The payments made by the petitioner cannot be considered self-ascertainment u/s 74(5) of the CGST Act, as the element of voluntariness is absent. Since the adjudication is still to conclude and a notice u/s 74(1) has already been issued, the question of going back to the stage of Section 74(5) does not arise. The petition is allowed in part, declaring the recovery of tax from the petitioner as illegal and directing a refund within four weeks, along with applicable interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
