Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
