Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
