Personal hearing requirements in GST adjudication were satisfied by prior opportunities and written submissions; appellate limitation received writ-pe...
Interactive flat panels meeting automatic data processing conditions are distinguished from monitors, while later classification clarifications apply ...
Challenge to an order-in-original raising demand exceeding the show-cause notice was not entertained in writ because an efficacious statutory appeal remedy was available; the petitioner was relegated to file an appeal before the appellate authority. On the pre-deposit dispute, the court recorded a prima facie view that, under s.75 CGST Act, the adjudication demand cannot exceed the SCN demand, rendering any excess demand unsustainable, and directed the appellate authority to decide whether the mandatory 10% deposit is to be computed on the SCN demand or the total demand in the order-in-original; physical filing with a 10% deposit application was permitted if the appeal is filed with the order. - HC
Challenge to an order-in-original raising demand exceeding the show-cause notice was not entertained in writ because an efficacious statutory appeal remedy was available; the petitioner was relegated to file an appeal before the appellate authority. On the pre-deposit dispute, the court recorded a prima facie view that, under s.75 CGST Act, the adjudication demand cannot exceed the SCN demand, rendering any excess demand unsustainable, and directed the appellate authority to decide whether the mandatory 10% deposit is to be computed on the SCN demand or the total demand in the order-in-original; physical filing with a 10% deposit application was permitted if the appeal is filed with the order. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
