Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
A High Court quashed a show cause notice for misapplying the CGST/KGST Act. It held that Section 52 could not be invoked where the e-commerce operator did not collect consideration and was not shown to be collecting tax on behalf of suppliers; the notice also wrongly treated a separate affiliated entity's services as the petitioner's own. Section 17(2) was held inapplicable because the notice did not establish any mixed use for taxable and exempt supplies or any exempt supply attracting reversal of input tax credit. Section 74 could not be invoked without specific allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax. The writ was therefore maintainable and the notice was quashed.
A High Court quashed a show cause notice for misapplying the CGST/KGST Act. It held that Section 52 could not be invoked where the e-commerce operator did not collect consideration and was not shown to be collecting tax on behalf of suppliers; the notice also wrongly treated a separate affiliated entity's services as the petitioner's own. Section 17(2) was held inapplicable because the notice did not establish any mixed use for taxable and exempt supplies or any exempt supply attracting reversal of input tax credit. Section 74 could not be invoked without specific allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax. The writ was therefore maintainable and the notice was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
