Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
