Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
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...
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for alleged willful suppression or fraud in tax payment. The petitioner contended that Section 74 was inapplicable as the mistake was rectified through returns and reconciliation statements before proceedings commenced, and argued that the show-cause notice failed to specify circumstances warranting Section 74 invocation. The HC held that since the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the court in writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of without considering merits, directing the petitioner to pursue available statutory appellate remedies instead of seeking extraordinary writ relief.
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for alleged willful suppression or fraud in tax payment. The petitioner contended that Section 74 was inapplicable as the mistake was rectified through returns and reconciliation statements before proceedings commenced, and argued that the show-cause notice failed to specify circumstances warranting Section 74 invocation. The HC held that since the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the court in writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of without considering merits, directing the petitioner to pursue available statutory appellate remedies instead of seeking extraordinary writ relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
