The Court set aside a GST demand that exceeded the amount proposed in the show-cause notice. The ruling reinforces the statutory cap under Section 75(7) on confirmed demands.
The Tribunal examined whether prior approval under Section 153D was granted after due application of mind. It held that mechanical and routine approval invalidates the assessment, rendering the search assessment void.
The reassessment was challenged for lacking approval from the correct authority under Section 151 after three years. The Tribunal held that sanction by an incorrect authority vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void.
This analysis explains how majority control can oppress minority shareholders and how mismanagement harms companies. The key takeaway is that law intervenes only when conduct is unfair, continuous, and prejudicial.
The Court held that petition, ARR processing, and licence fees collected while performing statutory regulatory functions do not constitute taxable supply under GST, leading to quashing of the show cause notice.
The Court will examine whether corporate guarantees issued by a parent company to its subsidiaries amount to a taxable supply under GST, while granting interim protection against coercive action.
The appellate tribunal held that substituting the investigating agency did not amount to a review or recall. Since the original investigation order remained intact, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that a direct appellate challenge to the final removal order was not maintainable. The appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ against the removal order.
Orissa High Court held that legal heir cannot fall within ken of Section 65(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 hence proceedings under section 73 of the Finance Act determining service tax after the death of the service provider is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.
The High Court held that a GST adjudication order cannot be based on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice. Both adjudication and appellate orders were set aside for violating Section 75(7).
