Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
HC held that show cause notices under Section 74(1) of CGST Act for alleged tax evasion must be issued separately for each financial year rather than through consolidated notices covering multiple years. The court reasoned that limitation periods vary by year, and consolidation could unfairly restrict an assessee's response time based on the earliest year's limitation. Additionally, consolidated notices leading to cumulative tax determinations across years would conflict with Section 74(9) and 74(10)'s year-specific provisions and could burden assessees with higher pre-deposit requirements for appeals. The proper officer must evaluate tax evasion independently for each assessment year. Appeal dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's ruling requiring separate notices.
HC held that show cause notices under Section 74(1) of CGST Act for alleged tax evasion must be issued separately for each financial year rather than through consolidated notices covering multiple years. The court reasoned that limitation periods vary by year, and consolidation could unfairly restrict an assessee's response time based on the earliest year's limitation. Additionally, consolidated notices leading to cumulative tax determinations across years would conflict with Section 74(9) and 74(10)'s year-specific provisions and could burden assessees with higher pre-deposit requirements for appeals. The proper officer must evaluate tax evasion independently for each assessment year. Appeal dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's ruling requiring separate notices.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.