Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
HC held that the challenge to the original order u/s 73 pursuant to DRC-01 dated 30.05.2024 was infructuous, as the earlier demand dated 24.08.2024 stood obliterated and substituted by a revised order dated 18.03.2025 under s.161, raising a fresh demand of Rs. 3,85,35,356/- on different grounds. Observing that the petitioner did not cooperate or respond to notices dated 05.12.2024 and 25.01.2025, HC nevertheless remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent to pass a fresh order in lieu of the order dated 18.03.2025. The order dated 18.03.2025 is to operate as a show cause notice. Petition dismissed.
HC held that the challenge to the original order u/s 73 pursuant to DRC-01 dated 30.05.2024 was infructuous, as the earlier demand dated 24.08.2024 stood obliterated and substituted by a revised order dated 18.03.2025 under s.161, raising a fresh demand of Rs. 3,85,35,356/- on different grounds. Observing that the petitioner did not cooperate or respond to notices dated 05.12.2024 and 25.01.2025, HC nevertheless remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent to pass a fresh order in lieu of the order dated 18.03.2025. The order dated 18.03.2025 is to operate as a show cause notice. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.