Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Respondent no. 2, an improper officer, substantially conducted investigation, inspection, search, seizure, and recorded statements against the petitioner. Respondent no. 1, the proper officer, issued a show cause notice u/s 74 of the CGST Act based on the investigation by respondent no. 2. The HC held that only a proper officer can investigate evasion of GST, conduct inspection, search, seizure, and arrest, failing which it is invalid. Respondent no. 1 cannot issue a notice based on the 'borrowed satisfaction' of respondent no. 2. The impugned show cause notice issued by respondent no. 1 was set aside, and respondent no. 1 was directed to refund Rs. 50,00,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks.
Respondent no. 2, an improper officer, substantially conducted investigation, inspection, search, seizure, and recorded statements against the petitioner. Respondent no. 1, the proper officer, issued a show cause notice u/s 74 of the CGST Act based on the investigation by respondent no. 2. The HC held that only a proper officer can investigate evasion of GST, conduct inspection, search, seizure, and arrest, failing which it is invalid. Respondent no. 1 cannot issue a notice based on the 'borrowed satisfaction' of respondent no. 2. The impugned show cause notice issued by respondent no. 1 was set aside, and respondent no. 1 was directed to refund Rs. 50,00,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
