Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The HC declined to entertain the writ, finding matters of alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit ordinarily unsuitable for writ jurisdiction where complex factual and evidentiary inquiries and the protection of the public exchequer require exhaustion of statutory remedies. The Court held the Petitioner had received notices and filed responses, raised no substantive merits other than non-supply of RUDs, and was relegated to the statutory appellate route under s.107, CGST. The Petitioner is directed to file the appeal with the requisite pre-deposit by 30 November 2025; if so filed, the appeal will be admitted and not dismissed as time-barred. Petition disposed.
The HC declined to entertain the writ, finding matters of alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit ordinarily unsuitable for writ jurisdiction where complex factual and evidentiary inquiries and the protection of the public exchequer require exhaustion of statutory remedies. The Court held the Petitioner had received notices and filed responses, raised no substantive merits other than non-supply of RUDs, and was relegated to the statutory appellate route under s.107, CGST. The Petitioner is directed to file the appeal with the requisite pre-deposit by 30 November 2025; if so filed, the appeal will be admitted and not dismissed as time-barred. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.