Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
