Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
