Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The HC held that the impugned SCN issued on 30th November 2024 was within the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, preceding the order dated 28th February 2025. The SCN and subsequent order were therefore not time-barred or beyond jurisdiction. The Court found that the Petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to file a reply and participate in personal hearings, with only one adjournment sought and granted, and no mandatory minimum of three adjournments required under Section 75(5). Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Petitioner was granted the right to file an appeal against the impugned order by 31st August 2025, subject to the pre-deposit under Section 107 of the CGST Act, with the appeal to be adjudicated on merits without dismissal on limitation grounds.
The HC held that the impugned SCN issued on 30th November 2024 was within the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, preceding the order dated 28th February 2025. The SCN and subsequent order were therefore not time-barred or beyond jurisdiction. The Court found that the Petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to file a reply and participate in personal hearings, with only one adjournment sought and granted, and no mandatory minimum of three adjournments required under Section 75(5). Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Petitioner was granted the right to file an appeal against the impugned order by 31st August 2025, subject to the pre-deposit under Section 107 of the CGST Act, with the appeal to be adjudicated on merits without dismissal on limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
