Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
The HC allowed the petition in part, holding that the impugned orders issued by the respondents were illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction insofar as they imposed and confirmed a penalty of Rs. 6,05,17,933/-. The Court found that the respondents failed to apply Sections 74 and 75 of the KGST Act and improperly invoked Section 122, resulting in a penalty demand exceeding both the show cause notice and the confirmed tax. The HC set aside the impugned orders to the limited extent of the aforesaid penalty and remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law, preserving the petitioner's readiness to pay tax and interest as determined.
The HC allowed the petition in part, holding that the impugned orders issued by the respondents were illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction insofar as they imposed and confirmed a penalty of Rs. 6,05,17,933/-. The Court found that the respondents failed to apply Sections 74 and 75 of the KGST Act and improperly invoked Section 122, resulting in a penalty demand exceeding both the show cause notice and the confirmed tax. The HC set aside the impugned orders to the limited extent of the aforesaid penalty and remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law, preserving the petitioner's readiness to pay tax and interest as determined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
