Personal hearing requirements in GST adjudication were satisfied by prior opportunities and written submissions; appellate limitation received writ-pe...
Interactive flat panels meeting automatic data processing conditions are distinguished from monitors, while later classification clarifications apply ...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
761 to 780 of 95957 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
