https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441333 The HC quashed the impugned review orders for lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice. The show cause notice addressed denial of deduction only under Rule 58(1)(h), but the review order disallowed deductions under all sub-rules (a) to (h), which was beyond the scope of the notice and thus bad in law. The application of a 20% rate under Rule 58(1) was also held unauthorized as the precondition of unclear accounts was not satisfied; the petitioner's accounts were verified and accepted in prior assessments. The court reiterated that orders cannot extend beyond the grounds specified in the show cause notice. Although an alternative remedy of appeal was available, the HC exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 due to jurisdictional and natural justice violations. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the impugned orders dated 8th March and 6th July 2021 were set aside. en-us Thu, 03 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441333 The HC quashed the impugned review orders for lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice. The show cause notice addressed denial of deduction only under Rule 58(1)(h), but the review order disallowed deductions under all sub-rules (a) to (h), which was beyond the scope of the notice and thus bad in law. The application of a 20% rate under Rule 58(1) was also held unauthorized as the precondition of unclear accounts was not satisfied; the petitioner's accounts were verified and accepted in prior assessments. The court reiterated that orders cannot extend beyond the grounds specified in the show cause notice. Although an alternative remedy of appeal was available, the HC exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 due to jurisdictional and natural justice violations. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the impugned orders dated 8th March and 6th July 2021 were set aside. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Thu, 03 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441333