Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC ruled that GST show-cause notices and final orders lacking physical or digital signatures of the Proper Officer are legally invalid. The court emphasized that Rule 142 of GST Rules mandates prescribed Forms requiring signatures, making it a statutory requirement rather than optional. The presence of signature fields in DRC-01 and DRC-07 forms establishes this as a mandatory element. Section 160 of GST Act regarding procedural defects does not protect unsigned notices. The court aligned with precedents from other High Courts and IT Act provisions requiring proper authentication of electronic records. Consequently, the impugned notices and orders without Proper Officer signatures were held invalid and the petition was allowed.
HC ruled that GST show-cause notices and final orders lacking physical or digital signatures of the Proper Officer are legally invalid. The court emphasized that Rule 142 of GST Rules mandates prescribed Forms requiring signatures, making it a statutory requirement rather than optional. The presence of signature fields in DRC-01 and DRC-07 forms establishes this as a mandatory element. Section 160 of GST Act regarding procedural defects does not protect unsigned notices. The court aligned with precedents from other High Courts and IT Act provisions requiring proper authentication of electronic records. Consequently, the impugned notices and orders without Proper Officer signatures were held invalid and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.