Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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.