Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The HC held that the impugned assessment order confirming tax demand of Rs. 6,93,77,821/-, in excess of the sum of Rs. 2,49,63,816/- proposed in the show-cause notice, was contrary to s.75(7) KGST Act and violative of principles of natural justice. It observed that the authority could not travel beyond the quantification in the SCN and that the rectification application was wrongly rejected on jurisdictional grounds. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order-in-original and the consequential order (Annexures-A and A1) and remanded the matter to the jurisdictional authority (R-3) for fresh consideration and reassessment strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC held that the impugned assessment order confirming tax demand of Rs. 6,93,77,821/-, in excess of the sum of Rs. 2,49,63,816/- proposed in the show-cause notice, was contrary to s.75(7) KGST Act and violative of principles of natural justice. It observed that the authority could not travel beyond the quantification in the SCN and that the rectification application was wrongly rejected on jurisdictional grounds. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order-in-original and the consequential order (Annexures-A and A1) and remanded the matter to the jurisdictional authority (R-3) for fresh consideration and reassessment strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
