Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
The HC examined whether proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 were time-barred. Proceedings commenced on 02.03.2023 via show cause notice with final order passed on 06.12.2023. The Court determined that even with the extension of time limit, such an order could only have been passed until 31.12.2023. Since these facts were undisputed and clearly evident from the impugned order and records, the Court concluded that the proceedings culminating in the impugned order were time-barred. The Court found no reason to call for a counter affidavit and allowed the petition, effectively invalidating the proceedings due to their time-barred nature.
The HC examined whether proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 were time-barred. Proceedings commenced on 02.03.2023 via show cause notice with final order passed on 06.12.2023. The Court determined that even with the extension of time limit, such an order could only have been passed until 31.12.2023. Since these facts were undisputed and clearly evident from the impugned order and records, the Court concluded that the proceedings culminating in the impugned order were time-barred. The Court found no reason to call for a counter affidavit and allowed the petition, effectively invalidating the proceedings due to their time-barred nature.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.