Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
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.