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...
The HC held that an adjudication order cannot confirm a demand that is not aligned with the show cause notice, as Section 75(7) requires the order to stay within the scope of the notice. On comparison, the notice and the order related to the same tax period and GST registration, yet the confirmed demand appeared inconsistent with the proposal in the notice. The impugned order was therefore quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits, with liberty to issue a corrigendum and proceed after obtaining the petitioner's response.
The HC held that an adjudication order cannot confirm a demand that is not aligned with the show cause notice, as Section 75(7) requires the order to stay within the scope of the notice. On comparison, the notice and the order related to the same tax period and GST registration, yet the confirmed demand appeared inconsistent with the proposal in the notice. The impugned order was therefore quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits, with liberty to issue a corrigendum and proceed after obtaining the petitioner's response.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
