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...
HC held that a show-cause notice issued under s.130 of the UPGST Act, 2017, before any adjudication of tax liability under ss.73/74, contravenes s.35 and is therefore jurisdictionally defective. The court quashed and set aside the s.122 read with s.130 notice and the impugned adjudicatory order dated 17.09.2025, and also quashed the seizure order dated 06.09.2025. The petition is disposed. The revenue is left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings consonant with statutory prescription by issuing show-cause notices under the appropriate substantive provisions of the Act, 2017, after determining tax liability in accordance with law.
HC held that a show-cause notice issued under s.130 of the UPGST Act, 2017, before any adjudication of tax liability under ss.73/74, contravenes s.35 and is therefore jurisdictionally defective. The court quashed and set aside the s.122 read with s.130 notice and the impugned adjudicatory order dated 17.09.2025, and also quashed the seizure order dated 06.09.2025. The petition is disposed. The revenue is left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings consonant with statutory prescription by issuing show-cause notices under the appropriate substantive provisions of the Act, 2017, after determining tax liability in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
