Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
A Joint Commissioner who had issued the show-cause notice before a later circular could validly pass the Order-in-Original imposing penalty for fraudulent availment and passing of ITC, since the proceedings had been initiated under Section 74 and the same officer had jurisdiction on the date of adjudication. The Court held that Section 160 of the CGST Act cured mere procedural defects or omissions where the proceedings were otherwise in substance in conformity with the Act. It also noted that the petitioner had not effectively contested jurisdiction at the notice stage or participated in the proceedings, so the objection was untenable. The writ challenge failed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
A Joint Commissioner who had issued the show-cause notice before a later circular could validly pass the Order-in-Original imposing penalty for fraudulent availment and passing of ITC, since the proceedings had been initiated under Section 74 and the same officer had jurisdiction on the date of adjudication. The Court held that Section 160 of the CGST Act cured mere procedural defects or omissions where the proceedings were otherwise in substance in conformity with the Act. It also noted that the petitioner had not effectively contested jurisdiction at the notice stage or participated in the proceedings, so the objection was untenable. The writ challenge failed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.