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 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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
