Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Adjudication proceeded on a basis different from the grounds specified in the show-cause notice, breaching Section 75(7) of the GST Act which proscribes confirming demand on any ground other than those stated; consequence: the impugned orders could not stand. The adjudicating authority relied on invoice treatment under forward charge to treat supplies as taxable under reverse charge, a new basis not pleaded in the notice; consequence: that reasoning was found improper. Reliance on GST back-office data may deprive affected persons of effective opportunity to reply; consequence: proceedings must be reheard after affording a proper opportunity and reconsideration, leading to remand of the matter.
Adjudication proceeded on a basis different from the grounds specified in the show-cause notice, breaching Section 75(7) of the GST Act which proscribes confirming demand on any ground other than those stated; consequence: the impugned orders could not stand. The adjudicating authority relied on invoice treatment under forward charge to treat supplies as taxable under reverse charge, a new basis not pleaded in the notice; consequence: that reasoning was found improper. Reliance on GST back-office data may deprive affected persons of effective opportunity to reply; consequence: proceedings must be reheard after affording a proper opportunity and reconsideration, leading to remand of the matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
