Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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/SGST Acts. The impugned order was quashed as it violated principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of hearing u/s 75(4) before passing the order. The Court clarified that the Statement u/s 73(3) cannot be treated as a Show Cause Notice required u/s 73(1). Further, Rule 26(3) mandates authentication of the Show Cause Notice, Statement, and Order, which was not followed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the petition disposed of on technical grounds of non-issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and violation of statutory provisions.
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/SGST Acts. The impugned order was quashed as it violated principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of hearing u/s 75(4) before passing the order. The Court clarified that the Statement u/s 73(3) cannot be treated as a Show Cause Notice required u/s 73(1). Further, Rule 26(3) mandates authentication of the Show Cause Notice, Statement, and Order, which was not followed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the petition disposed of on technical grounds of non-issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and violation of statutory provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
