Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
