Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Under Section 75(4), a personal hearing is required on demand; because the taxpayer did not file a reply to the show-cause notice and never sought a hearing, the HC held there was no breach of natural justice. The Court also held that the summary GST demand order issued in DRC-07 under Section 73 was appealable under the statute, so objections on merits or technical grounds should have been raised before the appellate authority. Having failed to participate in the proceedings and let the appeal period lapse, the taxpayer could not invoke writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed.
Under Section 75(4), a personal hearing is required on demand; because the taxpayer did not file a reply to the show-cause notice and never sought a hearing, the HC held there was no breach of natural justice. The Court also held that the summary GST demand order issued in DRC-07 under Section 73 was appealable under the statute, so objections on merits or technical grounds should have been raised before the appellate authority. Having failed to participate in the proceedings and let the appeal period lapse, the taxpayer could not invoke writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
