Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The HC dismissed the appeal as time-barred but allowed the petition insofar as the impugned adjudication order violated Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by confirming a demand (Rs. 6,52,259.04) exceeding the amount and grounds specified in the show-cause notice (Rs. 2,34,626.52). The court held the defect as substantive and not cured by mere indication of a reply date where the petitioner pleaded non-receipt of the notice. The adjudication order was set aside and the matter remitted to Respondent No.4 for issuance of fresh hearing opportunity, consideration of the petitioner's response, and passing of a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
The HC dismissed the appeal as time-barred but allowed the petition insofar as the impugned adjudication order violated Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by confirming a demand (Rs. 6,52,259.04) exceeding the amount and grounds specified in the show-cause notice (Rs. 2,34,626.52). The court held the defect as substantive and not cured by mere indication of a reply date where the petitioner pleaded non-receipt of the notice. The adjudication order was set aside and the matter remitted to Respondent No.4 for issuance of fresh hearing opportunity, consideration of the petitioner's response, and passing of a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
