Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3341 to 3360 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that a writ challenge to a GST DRC-01A intimation under Section 74(5) read with Rule 142(1A) was premature because the communication was only a pre-adjudication step. As no adjudication had yet occurred, and the proposed demand required factual examination including the special audit report, the dispute was not fit for writ interference. The department was directed to issue a show cause notice, grant a hearing, and pass a reasoned order. The petitioner may then pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 against the adjudicatory order, with all contentions left open.
The HC held that a writ challenge to a GST DRC-01A intimation under Section 74(5) read with Rule 142(1A) was premature because the communication was only a pre-adjudication step. As no adjudication had yet occurred, and the proposed demand required factual examination including the special audit report, the dispute was not fit for writ interference. The department was directed to issue a show cause notice, grant a hearing, and pass a reasoned order. The petitioner may then pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 against the adjudicatory order, with all contentions left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
