Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
HC examined the challenge to a SCN issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act for recovery of tax, interest and penalty, where the petitioner contended absence of allegations of fraud and non-fulfilment of statutory ingredients. HC reiterated that though writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 can be invoked even at the SCN stage, such interference is warranted only when the notice is shown to be null for want of jurisdiction or issued by an incompetent authority. Finding no inherent lack of jurisdiction or incompetence in the issuing authority, HC declined to entertain the petition against the SCN. Petition was disposed of, granting petitioner up to 15 days to file reply, and directing adjudication with due hearing.
HC examined the challenge to a SCN issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act for recovery of tax, interest and penalty, where the petitioner contended absence of allegations of fraud and non-fulfilment of statutory ingredients. HC reiterated that though writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 can be invoked even at the SCN stage, such interference is warranted only when the notice is shown to be null for want of jurisdiction or issued by an incompetent authority. Finding no inherent lack of jurisdiction or incompetence in the issuing authority, HC declined to entertain the petition against the SCN. Petition was disposed of, granting petitioner up to 15 days to file reply, and directing adjudication with due hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
