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 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
