Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
