Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
The High Court held that the Summary of Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing tax determination cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice as mandated u/s 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. The impugned order was passed without issuing a proper Show Cause Notice, violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) which requires granting an opportunity of hearing when requested. The court quashed the impugned order dated 31.12.2023 for being contrary to Sections 73 and 75(4), and Rule 142(1)(a). However, liberty was granted to the authorities to initiate de novo proceedings u/s 73 for the relevant financial year.
The High Court held that the Summary of Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing tax determination cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice as mandated u/s 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. The impugned order was passed without issuing a proper Show Cause Notice, violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) which requires granting an opportunity of hearing when requested. The court quashed the impugned order dated 31.12.2023 for being contrary to Sections 73 and 75(4), and Rule 142(1)(a). However, liberty was granted to the authorities to initiate de novo proceedings u/s 73 for the relevant financial year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
