Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
