Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
