Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging GST assessment orders under Section 73(9) CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed clerical errors caused turnover suppression totaling Rs.4,41,27,934.50 across December 2018 and January 2019 returns, with mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 filings. The assessing authority quantified liability for suppressed turnover, wrongful input tax credit utilization, and delayed tax payment. The appellate authority found insufficient evidence per clarificatory circular dated 27.02.2022 and Section 16(2). The HC held the assessment orders contained no natural justice violations or jurisdictional errors, noting available statutory remedy before the Tribunal. The Court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction where adequate alternative remedies existed.
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging GST assessment orders under Section 73(9) CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed clerical errors caused turnover suppression totaling Rs.4,41,27,934.50 across December 2018 and January 2019 returns, with mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 filings. The assessing authority quantified liability for suppressed turnover, wrongful input tax credit utilization, and delayed tax payment. The appellate authority found insufficient evidence per clarificatory circular dated 27.02.2022 and Section 16(2). The HC held the assessment orders contained no natural justice violations or jurisdictional errors, noting available statutory remedy before the Tribunal. The Court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction where adequate alternative remedies existed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
