Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
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 
