Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Interim judicial restraint on tax deduction prevents default, while supporting reasonable cause and penalty deletion for foreign-leg LFC reimbursement...
Palmolein classification defeated the crude-oil concession; material misdeclaration sustained recovery and confiscation, while separate false-document...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4897 
