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" ?
The HC held that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was invalidly issued as it merely alleged wrongful refund claims without substantiating fraud or misrepresentation. Following precedents in Parity Infotech and HCL Infotech Ltd., the Court determined that invoking the extended limitation period under Section 74 requires specific allegations of fraud, misstatement, or suppression of facts, not merely mechanical reproduction of statutory language. The Court found the SCN was issued as a circuitous means to avoid consequences from previous litigation between the parties, and that refund claims cannot be legitimately stalled through such tactics. The petition was accordingly disposed of in the petitioner's favor.
The HC held that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was invalidly issued as it merely alleged wrongful refund claims without substantiating fraud or misrepresentation. Following precedents in Parity Infotech and HCL Infotech Ltd., the Court determined that invoking the extended limitation period under Section 74 requires specific allegations of fraud, misstatement, or suppression of facts, not merely mechanical reproduction of statutory language. The Court found the SCN was issued as a circuitous means to avoid consequences from previous litigation between the parties, and that refund claims cannot be legitimately stalled through such tactics. The petition was accordingly disposed of in the petitioner's favor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.