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...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
