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...
HC held that the tax and penalty demand under s.73 of the GST Act was illegally enhanced from Rs. 5,11,145.80 in the SCN to Rs. 38,60,604/- in the impugned order, in contravention of s.75(7), which bars adjudication beyond the scope and quantum specified in the SCN. Relying on a prior Division Bench ruling on identical facts, the HC reiterated that absence of proper opportunity, coupled with an excessive demand beyond the SCN, vitiates the adjudication. Finding the impugned orders unsustainable in law, the HC quashed the demand and consequential orders in their entirety. The writ petition filed by M/s X was accordingly allowed, with liberty to the department, if so advised, to proceed strictly in accordance with law and within the limits of the original SCN.
HC held that the tax and penalty demand under s.73 of the GST Act was illegally enhanced from Rs. 5,11,145.80 in the SCN to Rs. 38,60,604/- in the impugned order, in contravention of s.75(7), which bars adjudication beyond the scope and quantum specified in the SCN. Relying on a prior Division Bench ruling on identical facts, the HC reiterated that absence of proper opportunity, coupled with an excessive demand beyond the SCN, vitiates the adjudication. Finding the impugned orders unsustainable in law, the HC quashed the demand and consequential orders in their entirety. The writ petition filed by M/s X was accordingly allowed, with liberty to the department, if so advised, to proceed strictly in accordance with law and within the limits of the original SCN.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
