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...
The HC declined to quash a GST show cause notice at the writ stage, holding that interference under Article 226 is confined to exceptional cases where the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or facially illegal. The earlier classification ruling in the petitioner's own case did not conclude the present demand because the notice rested on a different foundation and on material gathered in enquiry, including the petitioner's documents. Questions on bifurcation, supply character, applicable rate and limitation were matters for reply before the proper officer, not writ review. The petition was dismissed with liberty to respond to the notice within four weeks, and all merits objections were kept open.
The HC declined to quash a GST show cause notice at the writ stage, holding that interference under Article 226 is confined to exceptional cases where the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or facially illegal. The earlier classification ruling in the petitioner's own case did not conclude the present demand because the notice rested on a different foundation and on material gathered in enquiry, including the petitioner's documents. Questions on bifurcation, supply character, applicable rate and limitation were matters for reply before the proper officer, not writ review. The petition was dismissed with liberty to respond to the notice within four weeks, and all merits objections were kept open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
