Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
