Suppressed sales records can establish tax liability, while taxpayer-initiated remands cannot worsen an appellant's position.
Case-Laws
GST
Rule 56(10) creates a rebuttable presumption of maintenance for a registered person's records, even when found away from registered premises. Records linked to a trader by their contents, custody and an admission can establish suppressed sales on a balance of probabilities. Section 74 applies to deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax, attracting a penalty equal to tax; a shortfall or bona fide mistake alone is insufficient. Enhancement-notice requirements do not apply where the fresh determination reduces the original demand covered by the notice. An appellant-initiated remand cannot worsen the appellant's position: the earlier appellate determination caps tax, penalty and interest accrued up to that determination, while statutory interest continues on capped tax until payment. Service through the GST common portal is valid. A full hearing on remand may cure a procedural defect where no prejudice is shown. Clerical errors do not invalidate proceedings that are substantively compliant with the Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n