Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
The HC quashed a notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on procedural grounds. The notice was improperly addressed to the Branch Manager of the respondent-bank at Gurugram rather than to the petitioner directly. The petitioner contended that no bank account existed at Gurugram, with the relevant account being at Mulund Branch, and denied owing any amount to the defaulter allegedly liable for Rs. 30.19 crores GST dues. The HC held that Section 79 mandates service of notice upon the person from whom money is due to enable them to prove no liability exists. Since no notice was served upon the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 9 July 2024 was set aside and the petition was allowed.
The HC quashed a notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on procedural grounds. The notice was improperly addressed to the Branch Manager of the respondent-bank at Gurugram rather than to the petitioner directly. The petitioner contended that no bank account existed at Gurugram, with the relevant account being at Mulund Branch, and denied owing any amount to the defaulter allegedly liable for Rs. 30.19 crores GST dues. The HC held that Section 79 mandates service of notice upon the person from whom money is due to enable them to prove no liability exists. Since no notice was served upon the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 9 July 2024 was set aside and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
