Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The HC held that issuance of a proper, duly authenticated Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73(1) is mandatory and cannot be supplanted by a summary notice in GST DRC-01 or an attached tax determination statement. The impugned orders under Section 73(9) were quashed for lack of valid SCN issuance and failure to provide an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 75(4), thereby violating natural justice. The Court clarified that the Proper Officer must issue the SCN, Statement under Section 73(3), and the final order under Section 73(9), with digital authentication per Rule 26(3) due to regulatory gaps. The orders passed without proper SCN and hearing were set aside. However, liberty was granted to respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73 in accordance with statutory mandates and principles of natural justice. The petition was allowed.
The HC held that issuance of a proper, duly authenticated Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73(1) is mandatory and cannot be supplanted by a summary notice in GST DRC-01 or an attached tax determination statement. The impugned orders under Section 73(9) were quashed for lack of valid SCN issuance and failure to provide an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 75(4), thereby violating natural justice. The Court clarified that the Proper Officer must issue the SCN, Statement under Section 73(3), and the final order under Section 73(9), with digital authentication per Rule 26(3) due to regulatory gaps. The orders passed without proper SCN and hearing were set aside. However, liberty was granted to respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73 in accordance with statutory mandates and principles of natural justice. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.