Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
