Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
