Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
HC, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, examined a challenge to a demand order and SCN issued under the GST Act, 2017. It held that, under Section 75(7) read with Section 74(9), the final order cannot demand tax, interest or penalty in excess of, or on grounds different from, those specified in the SCN. In the present case, the impugned order under Section 74(9) demanded an amount far exceeding that in the SCN, violating Section 75(7) and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order and consequential demand were quashed and the petition allowed.
HC, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, examined a challenge to a demand order and SCN issued under the GST Act, 2017. It held that, under Section 75(7) read with Section 74(9), the final order cannot demand tax, interest or penalty in excess of, or on grounds different from, those specified in the SCN. In the present case, the impugned order under Section 74(9) demanded an amount far exceeding that in the SCN, violating Section 75(7) and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order and consequential demand were quashed and the petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
