Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The HC held that initiation of proceedings under Section 73/74 of the GST Act for tax determination based solely on the discrepancy between turnover declared in the E-way bill and Form GSTR-9, absent any allegation of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression, is impermissible. The respondent authority lacked jurisdiction to proceed under Section 73/74 without evidence of such misconduct. Furthermore, initiation under Section 74 requires a prima facie finding of fraud or suppression after preliminary investigation, which was not established. The impugned show-cause notice dated 27.12.2023, the consequential Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2024, and subsequent orders were quashed and set aside for violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. The petition was allowed accordingly.
The HC held that initiation of proceedings under Section 73/74 of the GST Act for tax determination based solely on the discrepancy between turnover declared in the E-way bill and Form GSTR-9, absent any allegation of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression, is impermissible. The respondent authority lacked jurisdiction to proceed under Section 73/74 without evidence of such misconduct. Furthermore, initiation under Section 74 requires a prima facie finding of fraud or suppression after preliminary investigation, which was not established. The impugned show-cause notice dated 27.12.2023, the consequential Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2024, and subsequent orders were quashed and set aside for violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
