Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
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 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
