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...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
