Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
The dominant issues were whether the adjudication confirming GST demand was vitiated by (i) denial of a statutorily mandated personal hearing under Section 75(4) and (ii) lack of jurisdiction under Section 75(7) in confirming demand beyond the show cause notice. The authority held that once a personal hearing is specifically requested, Section 75(4) imposes a mandatory duty to grant it; passing an ex parte order despite such request is a fatal breach of natural justice and cannot be cured by later merits review, rendering the order unsustainable. It further held that any final demand exceeding the amount proposed in the show cause notice is ultra vires under Section 75(7), vitiating the order. The adjudication and appellate orders were quashed and the matter remanded. - HC
The dominant issues were whether the adjudication confirming GST demand was vitiated by (i) denial of a statutorily mandated personal hearing under Section 75(4) and (ii) lack of jurisdiction under Section 75(7) in confirming demand beyond the show cause notice. The authority held that once a personal hearing is specifically requested, Section 75(4) imposes a mandatory duty to grant it; passing an ex parte order despite such request is a fatal breach of natural justice and cannot be cured by later merits review, rendering the order unsustainable. It further held that any final demand exceeding the amount proposed in the show cause notice is ultra vires under Section 75(7), vitiating the order. The adjudication and appellate orders were quashed and the matter remanded. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
