Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
HC quashed impugned show cause notices and orders issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, holding that invocation of the extended limitation provision requires clear allegation that non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund or wrongful ITC availing arose from fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The notices and orders failed to allege those essential elements and used language of "determination" suggesting predetermination rather than the statutory requirement to "specify" sums payable, rendering procedural source-of-liability defective. Because Section 74 was improperly invoked, the writ petition succeeds; the revenue remains at liberty to pursue recovery under other provisions, including Section 73, if legally permissible.
HC quashed impugned show cause notices and orders issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, holding that invocation of the extended limitation provision requires clear allegation that non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund or wrongful ITC availing arose from fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The notices and orders failed to allege those essential elements and used language of "determination" suggesting predetermination rather than the statutory requirement to "specify" sums payable, rendering procedural source-of-liability defective. Because Section 74 was improperly invoked, the writ petition succeeds; the revenue remains at liberty to pursue recovery under other provisions, including Section 73, if legally permissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.