Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The HC held that the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside for noncompliance with Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a) and for violation of the principles of natural justice under Section 75(4). The court found that a DRC-01 summary cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice; a distinct SCN and, where issued, a Statement under Section 73(3) are mandatory, and Section 73(2)'s timing requirements must be observed. Because the Proper Officer proceeded without affording an effective hearing, the adverse order was invalid. The petition is allowed; respondents are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings de novo under Section 73 if deemed appropriate.
The HC held that the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside for noncompliance with Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a) and for violation of the principles of natural justice under Section 75(4). The court found that a DRC-01 summary cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice; a distinct SCN and, where issued, a Statement under Section 73(3) are mandatory, and Section 73(2)'s timing requirements must be observed. Because the Proper Officer proceeded without affording an effective hearing, the adverse order was invalid. The petition is allowed; respondents are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings de novo under Section 73 if deemed appropriate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.