Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
The HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to quash or modify the show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, finding no basis to interfere at this stage. The Court held that allegations of suppression of facts could not be dismissed prematurely and must be examined by the issuing authority. The petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks, which the authority is directed to consider. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no relief granted against the issuance or content of the notice, thereby preserving the procedural rights of the parties under the CGST Act.
The HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to quash or modify the show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, finding no basis to interfere at this stage. The Court held that allegations of suppression of facts could not be dismissed prematurely and must be examined by the issuing authority. The petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks, which the authority is directed to consider. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no relief granted against the issuance or content of the notice, thereby preserving the procedural rights of the parties under the CGST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.