Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice issued under s.74 of the CGST Act against the petitioner. The court held the jurisdictional fact of wilful suppression with intent to evade tax was not pleaded or established; mere omission to disclose correct value or apply the proper GST rate in GSTR-5A, or classification disputes concerning OIDAR-type services under Type-II/Type-III tests, do not satisfy the mens rea required to invoke the extended period. Absent proof of conscious, deliberate suppression to evade payment, the stringent provisions of s.74 cannot be lawfully invoked, rendering the SCN manifestly without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed.
HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice issued under s.74 of the CGST Act against the petitioner. The court held the jurisdictional fact of wilful suppression with intent to evade tax was not pleaded or established; mere omission to disclose correct value or apply the proper GST rate in GSTR-5A, or classification disputes concerning OIDAR-type services under Type-II/Type-III tests, do not satisfy the mens rea required to invoke the extended period. Absent proof of conscious, deliberate suppression to evade payment, the stringent provisions of s.74 cannot be lawfully invoked, rendering the SCN manifestly without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.