Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Issuance of only a summary show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 does not satisfy the requirement of a proper prior notice under Section 73(1) read with Rule 142(1), because the summary is not a substitute for the statutory notice that sets adjudication in motion. The Court held that the notice, the statement under Section 73(3), and the order under Section 73(9) must be issued by the Proper Officer in accordance with the statutory scheme, and such compliance is a condition precedent to a valid Section 73(9) order. As no proper prior notice had been served, the HC quashed the impugned order and consequential actions, while granting liberty to initiate fresh proceedings and directing exclusion of the specified period for limitation purposes.
Issuance of only a summary show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 does not satisfy the requirement of a proper prior notice under Section 73(1) read with Rule 142(1), because the summary is not a substitute for the statutory notice that sets adjudication in motion. The Court held that the notice, the statement under Section 73(3), and the order under Section 73(9) must be issued by the Proper Officer in accordance with the statutory scheme, and such compliance is a condition precedent to a valid Section 73(9) order. As no proper prior notice had been served, the HC quashed the impugned order and consequential actions, while granting liberty to initiate fresh proceedings and directing exclusion of the specified period for limitation purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.