Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
Proceedings initiated under s.74 of the SGST Act were held without jurisdiction because the show cause notice failed to allege the statutory preconditions of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts for wrongful or excess availment/utilisation of input tax credit; absent these foundational averments, the authority could not assume s.74 jurisdiction. The record showed actual movement of goods and that returns and tax payments were reflected in GSTR-1, GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, and the revenue did not specifically deny these compliances, making any adverse inference unjustified. The impugned orders were quashed and the petition was allowed - HC
Proceedings initiated under s.74 of the SGST Act were held without jurisdiction because the show cause notice failed to allege the statutory preconditions of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts for wrongful or excess availment/utilisation of input tax credit; absent these foundational averments, the authority could not assume s.74 jurisdiction. The record showed actual movement of goods and that returns and tax payments were reflected in GSTR-1, GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, and the revenue did not specifically deny these compliances, making any adverse inference unjustified. The impugned orders were quashed and the petition was allowed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.