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...
An adjudication order was vitiated for want of jurisdiction because it was digitally signed by the Commercial Tax Officer, the power to pass the order lay with the Deputy Commissioner; the digital signature was treated as primary evidence of the decision-making authority, and the State's explanation that the order had been uploaded through another officer's dashboard was rejected. The Court, however, did not accept the assessee's objection on limitation, holding that the show cause notice had been issued by the competent authority and the assessee had participated in the proceedings, so a procedural defect at the stage of the order did not justify avoiding adjudication altogether. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision by the Deputy Commissioner after hearing.
An adjudication order was vitiated for want of jurisdiction because it was digitally signed by the Commercial Tax Officer, the power to pass the order lay with the Deputy Commissioner; the digital signature was treated as primary evidence of the decision-making authority, and the State's explanation that the order had been uploaded through another officer's dashboard was rejected. The Court, however, did not accept the assessee's objection on limitation, holding that the show cause notice had been issued by the competent authority and the assessee had participated in the proceedings, so a procedural defect at the stage of the order did not justify avoiding adjudication altogether. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision by the Deputy Commissioner after hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
