Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
