Co-operative society's mandatory reserve and share capital fixed deposits with banks-interest treated as business income under 80P(2)(a)(iii) deductio...
Income tax reassessment reopening after four years on investigation tip, without s.147 proviso disclosure failure, struck down as borrowed satisfactio...
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.