Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable because the show-cause notice did not plead or disclose the requisite jurisdictional ingredients (such as suppression or wilful misstatement) and lacked supporting material. Limitation was treated as a jurisdictional fact, requiring satisfaction of both factual and legal elements before extended limitation could be assumed. Since the notice was cryptic, non-speaking, and unreasoned, the authority could not lawfully assume jurisdiction by invoking Section 73(1). Consequently, the show-cause notice and all proceedings pursuant to it were quashed, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable because the show-cause notice did not plead or disclose the requisite jurisdictional ingredients (such as suppression or wilful misstatement) and lacked supporting material. Limitation was treated as a jurisdictional fact, requiring satisfaction of both factual and legal elements before extended limitation could be assumed. Since the notice was cryptic, non-speaking, and unreasoned, the authority could not lawfully assume jurisdiction by invoking Section 73(1). Consequently, the show-cause notice and all proceedings pursuant to it were quashed, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
