Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
