Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
