Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
