Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1141 to 1160 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.