Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 4816 
Join Channel 
