Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
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.