Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The HC allowed the petition and held that the impugned adjudication violated Section 75(7) of the GST Act by confirming a demand exceeding the amount and grounds specified in the show-cause notice. The court quashed the order insofar as it purported to levy tax, interest and penalty beyond the Rs. 2,10,04,200 specified in the notice, and declared the enhanced demand of Rs. 3,04,55,800 unsustainable. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, if any, confined strictly to the amount and grounds articulated in the original notice; any fresh demand must comply with the statutory limits prescribed by Section 75(7).
The HC allowed the petition and held that the impugned adjudication violated Section 75(7) of the GST Act by confirming a demand exceeding the amount and grounds specified in the show-cause notice. The court quashed the order insofar as it purported to levy tax, interest and penalty beyond the Rs. 2,10,04,200 specified in the notice, and declared the enhanced demand of Rs. 3,04,55,800 unsustainable. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, if any, confined strictly to the amount and grounds articulated in the original notice; any fresh demand must comply with the statutory limits prescribed by Section 75(7).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
