Personal liberty safeguards restrict arrest after court-directed GST appearance, requiring interim release where authorities overreach pending proceed...
Alternative statutory remedy and delay bar GST writ challenges despite pending rectification, while distinct subject matter permits parallel proceedin...
Unverified Insight Portal Information Cannot Justify Reassessment Without a Verified Taxpayer-Specific Income-Escape Nexus or Demonstrated Application...
Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
The HC quashed the retrospective cancellation of GST registration under SS29 of CGST Act, 2017, finding procedural violations. Neither the SCN nor final order provided material evidence supporting the allegation under SS29(2)(e), nor did they notify the petitioner of intended retrospective cancellation. This procedural defect alone invalidated the action. The court clarified that authorities may continue proceedings regarding alleged fraudulent registration, provided the petitioner receives proper notice with supporting evidence. On time limitation, the court referenced Addichem Speciality LLP, confirming that condonation of delay depends on statutory provisions governing the remedy. The March 20, 2024 order was quashed insofar as it retrospectively canceled registration.
The HC quashed the retrospective cancellation of GST registration under SS29 of CGST Act, 2017, finding procedural violations. Neither the SCN nor final order provided material evidence supporting the allegation under SS29(2)(e), nor did they notify the petitioner of intended retrospective cancellation. This procedural defect alone invalidated the action. The court clarified that authorities may continue proceedings regarding alleged fraudulent registration, provided the petitioner receives proper notice with supporting evidence. On time limitation, the court referenced Addichem Speciality LLP, confirming that condonation of delay depends on statutory provisions governing the remedy. The March 20, 2024 order was quashed insofar as it retrospectively canceled registration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
