Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
HC held that the appellate authority's suo motu restoration of an IGST demand, previously dropped by the adjudicating authority, was unsustainable under the statutory scheme and Section 75(7); the appellate body could not lawfully revive the demand without issuing a fresh show-cause notice as contemplated by the second proviso to Section 107(11). Because the outer limitation for issuing a fresh show-cause has expired, the petitioner cannot be saddled with a new liability and the impugned demand is set aside. The respondents are directed to revise the demand in FORM GST APL-04 in accordance with this order and, insofar as discrepancy No. 4 engages Section 16(5), to grant the petitioner any entitled benefit. Petition disposed.
HC held that the appellate authority's suo motu restoration of an IGST demand, previously dropped by the adjudicating authority, was unsustainable under the statutory scheme and Section 75(7); the appellate body could not lawfully revive the demand without issuing a fresh show-cause notice as contemplated by the second proviso to Section 107(11). Because the outer limitation for issuing a fresh show-cause has expired, the petitioner cannot be saddled with a new liability and the impugned demand is set aside. The respondents are directed to revise the demand in FORM GST APL-04 in accordance with this order and, insofar as discrepancy No. 4 engages Section 16(5), to grant the petitioner any entitled benefit. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
