Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Mandatory pre-show cause intimation under Rule 142(1)(A) was not issued before initiation of the assessment proceedings, and that fact was undisputed. Applying the earlier Division Bench ruling on the same point, the HC held that such non-compliance vitiates the assessment order and requires it to be set aside. The impugned assessment for the relevant financial year was accordingly quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment in accordance with law, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within the time granted.
Mandatory pre-show cause intimation under Rule 142(1)(A) was not issued before initiation of the assessment proceedings, and that fact was undisputed. Applying the earlier Division Bench ruling on the same point, the HC held that such non-compliance vitiates the assessment order and requires it to be set aside. The impugned assessment for the relevant financial year was accordingly quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment in accordance with law, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within the time granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.