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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 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 the Summary of Show Cause Notice (SCN) along with the attachment containing tax determination cannot be considered a valid initiation of proceedings u/s 73 without issuance of a proper SCN. The issuance of SCN and Statement of tax determination by the Proper Officer are mandatory requirements in addition to the Summary in GST DRC-01 and DRC-02. The impugned orders were contrary to Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a) as they were passed without issuing a proper SCN. Rule 26(3) cannot be applied to Chapter XVIII as it refers only to Chapter III. The HC opined that when the statute mandates an opportunity of hearing u/s 75(4), it must be provided, and the impugned orders violated this provision. The Summary in DRC-01 cannot substitute the SCN u/s 73(1). The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The HC held that the Summary of Show Cause Notice (SCN) along with the attachment containing tax determination cannot be considered a valid initiation of proceedings u/s 73 without issuance of a proper SCN. The issuance of SCN and Statement of tax determination by the Proper Officer are mandatory requirements in addition to the Summary in GST DRC-01 and DRC-02. The impugned orders were contrary to Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a) as they were passed without issuing a proper SCN. Rule 26(3) cannot be applied to Chapter XVIII as it refers only to Chapter III. The HC opined that when the statute mandates an opportunity of hearing u/s 75(4), it must be provided, and the impugned orders violated this provision. The Summary in DRC-01 cannot substitute the SCN u/s 73(1). The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
