Form GST DRC-01A is intended to inform the taxpayer about the proposed demand and to provide an opportunity either to discharge the liability voluntarily or to submit an explanation before formal adjudication proceedings are initiated. It is a facilitative provision designed to promote voluntary compliance and reduce avoidable litigation.
The Supreme Court confirmed that reassessment powers under Section 148 cannot be used to bypass the statutory scheme for search cases. The decision clarifies the distinct operating fields of Sections 153C and 148.
The Court held that reassessment based solely on material seized in a third-party search must proceed under Section 153C, not Section 148. Notices issued under the general reassessment provision were set aside.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s direction to process Section 10(46) applications. The ruling affirms that existing approval under Section 10(23C) is not an absolute bar.
The High Court held that statutory bodies can surrender approval under one exemption provision and seek notification under another. Authorities were directed to process applications under Section 10(46).
The High Court held that failure to pass a reasoned final order on an informant’s reward violates the 2007 Guidelines and directed the competent committee to reconsider the claim after hearing the informant.
The appellate tribunal held that a legal representative cannot raise objections not taken by the deceased defendant. The order striking off the defence was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the matter after finding that the appellate authority failed to decide the assessees grounds on merits. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to consider all documents.
The Delhi High Court refused to quash the CBIC circular assigning “proper officer” functions, holding that it was issued with due authority and carries a presumption of validity.
The Supreme Court stayed a High Court ruling that barred parallel appeal and rectification proceedings under excise law. The case highlights limits on pursuing multiple remedies at the same time.
