Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC allowed the petition, finding a violation of Section 75(7) of GST Act. The tax authority issued a show-cause notice for Rs. 45,66,398 but subsequently raised a demand of Rs. 68,07,953, which exceeded the original notice amount. The court held that this contravened statutory provisions regarding tax determination. The petitioner's claim of being unaware of the notice due to its placement in an 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab was considered valid. The court emphasized that the demand must not surpass the amount specified in the original notice, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. The judgment upheld principles of natural justice and statutory compliance.
HC allowed the petition, finding a violation of Section 75(7) of GST Act. The tax authority issued a show-cause notice for Rs. 45,66,398 but subsequently raised a demand of Rs. 68,07,953, which exceeded the original notice amount. The court held that this contravened statutory provisions regarding tax determination. The petitioner's claim of being unaware of the notice due to its placement in an 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab was considered valid. The court emphasized that the demand must not surpass the amount specified in the original notice, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. The judgment upheld principles of natural justice and statutory compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
