Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the show cause notice issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court found no justification for alleging suppression or invoking the extended period of limitation. The show cause notice was based on findings from investigations after the audit report. The petitioner's statements accepting its status as a payment aggregator were considered relevant. The court held that at the show cause notice stage, judicial review is extremely narrow, and defences can be raised in response. Interference is warranted only in cases of violation of fundamental rights, natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction, which were not established here. The petitioner was directed to respond to the show cause notice and raise all defences.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the show cause notice issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court found no justification for alleging suppression or invoking the extended period of limitation. The show cause notice was based on findings from investigations after the audit report. The petitioner's statements accepting its status as a payment aggregator were considered relevant. The court held that at the show cause notice stage, judicial review is extremely narrow, and defences can be raised in response. Interference is warranted only in cases of violation of fundamental rights, natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction, which were not established here. The petitioner was directed to respond to the show cause notice and raise all defences.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
