Tax appeal allowed: AO exceeded s.144C DRP mandate by introducing new findings and recharacterising non-resident receipts as permanent establishment i...
Anonymized petitioner gets partial relief: bank guarantee quashed, PVC-coated fabric released under reduced conditions while valuation proceedings con...
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 4824 
Join Channel 
