Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
