Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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 
