Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
