Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
