Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that u/s 74(1), the authority can issue a single notice calling upon the assessee to pay tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit was wrongly availed due to fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts, for any period, provided the notice is given at least 6 months prior to the time limit specified in Section 74(10). The petitioner's argument that separate notices should have been issued for each financial year was rejected. The petition challenging the show cause notice was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise all arguments before the concerned authority.
The HC held that u/s 74(1), the authority can issue a single notice calling upon the assessee to pay tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit was wrongly availed due to fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts, for any period, provided the notice is given at least 6 months prior to the time limit specified in Section 74(10). The petitioner's argument that separate notices should have been issued for each financial year was rejected. The petition challenging the show cause notice was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise all arguments before the concerned authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
