Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
High Court held that initiation of proceedings under Section 74 requires issuance of a formal show cause notice stating reasons and that a summary in Form GST DRC-01 with an attached statement of determination cannot substitute for the SCN mandated by Section 74 read with Rule 142(1)(a); initiation without a proper SCN was contrary to law. The Court also found that an opportunity of hearing prescribed by Section 75(4) must be granted before an adverse order; failure to afford a hearing vitiated the impugned order. The impugned order was set aside, liberty granted to initiate de novo proceedings, and the interregnum excluded for limitation calculation.
High Court held that initiation of proceedings under Section 74 requires issuance of a formal show cause notice stating reasons and that a summary in Form GST DRC-01 with an attached statement of determination cannot substitute for the SCN mandated by Section 74 read with Rule 142(1)(a); initiation without a proper SCN was contrary to law. The Court also found that an opportunity of hearing prescribed by Section 75(4) must be granted before an adverse order; failure to afford a hearing vitiated the impugned order. The impugned order was set aside, liberty granted to initiate de novo proceedings, and the interregnum excluded for limitation calculation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
