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 ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 27.12.2023, holding the proceedings initiated under s.74 of the GST Act to be without jurisdiction. The court found respondent-authority erred by invoking s.74 despite an existing show-cause notice and OIO (20.02.2023) alleging wrongful carry-forward of CENVAT/service-tax credit of Rs.4,15,55,899 and a pending appeal before the CESTAT; it also noted non-consideration of the petitioner's reply and a copy of the pending OIO, raising natural justice concerns. Consequently the show-cause notice dated 13.07.2022 and the resultant OIO were set aside and the petition was allowed.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 27.12.2023, holding the proceedings initiated under s.74 of the GST Act to be without jurisdiction. The court found respondent-authority erred by invoking s.74 despite an existing show-cause notice and OIO (20.02.2023) alleging wrongful carry-forward of CENVAT/service-tax credit of Rs.4,15,55,899 and a pending appeal before the CESTAT; it also noted non-consideration of the petitioner's reply and a copy of the pending OIO, raising natural justice concerns. Consequently the show-cause notice dated 13.07.2022 and the resultant OIO were set aside and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
