Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
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 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
