ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
