Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2023, finding violations of natural justice principles and statutory requirements. The court held that the Proper Officer failed to issue a valid show cause notice under Section 73, as the summary in GST DRC-01 cannot substitute for a proper SCN. The determination of tax and attached order were deemed invalid due to lack of proper authentication by the Proper Officer, creating a regulatory gap requiring digital or e-signature authentication under Rule 26(3). The court found the order contravened Section 75(4) by denying reasonable opportunity of hearing, as the DRC-01 summary left hearing date fields blank and failed to provide personal hearing opportunity despite no reply submission. The petition was allowed.
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2023, finding violations of natural justice principles and statutory requirements. The court held that the Proper Officer failed to issue a valid show cause notice under Section 73, as the summary in GST DRC-01 cannot substitute for a proper SCN. The determination of tax and attached order were deemed invalid due to lack of proper authentication by the Proper Officer, creating a regulatory gap requiring digital or e-signature authentication under Rule 26(3). The court found the order contravened Section 75(4) by denying reasonable opportunity of hearing, as the DRC-01 summary left hearing date fields blank and failed to provide personal hearing opportunity despite no reply submission. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
