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 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.