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" ?
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 
