Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued for wrongful availment of input tax credit by the petitioners. The Court held that the show cause notice u/s 74 of the CGST/WBGST Acts is merely initiation of adjudication and does not warrant judicial interference unless issued wholly without jurisdiction or ex-facie perverse. Relying on Supreme Court's decision in Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse case, the Court ruled that writ jurisdiction can be invoked only when the notice lacks jurisdiction, and interim relief cannot be granted bypassing the statutory adjudication mechanism. The Court found no jurisdictional error or procedural impropriety in issuing the notice and emphasized that procedural grievances can be effectively addressed during adjudication u/s 74(9). The statutory framework provides sufficient opportunity for taxpayers to raise defenses, and premature judicial intervention is impermissible.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued for wrongful availment of input tax credit by the petitioners. The Court held that the show cause notice u/s 74 of the CGST/WBGST Acts is merely initiation of adjudication and does not warrant judicial interference unless issued wholly without jurisdiction or ex-facie perverse. Relying on Supreme Court's decision in Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse case, the Court ruled that writ jurisdiction can be invoked only when the notice lacks jurisdiction, and interim relief cannot be granted bypassing the statutory adjudication mechanism. The Court found no jurisdictional error or procedural impropriety in issuing the notice and emphasized that procedural grievances can be effectively addressed during adjudication u/s 74(9). The statutory framework provides sufficient opportunity for taxpayers to raise defenses, and premature judicial intervention is impermissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
