Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the demand raised exceeded the amount specified in the show-cause notice, violating Section 75(7) of the GST Act, which prohibits confirming a demand beyond the specified amount or on grounds not mentioned in the notice. The impugned order, which demanded Rs. 41,84,920 against the notice amount of Rs. 23,69,062.50, was quashed. The matter was remanded to the respondent for providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and to pass a fresh order in compliance with statutory requirements. The petition was allowed accordingly.
The HC held that the demand raised exceeded the amount specified in the show-cause notice, violating Section 75(7) of the GST Act, which prohibits confirming a demand beyond the specified amount or on grounds not mentioned in the notice. The impugned order, which demanded Rs. 41,84,920 against the notice amount of Rs. 23,69,062.50, was quashed. The matter was remanded to the respondent for providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and to pass a fresh order in compliance with statutory requirements. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
