Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
GST adjudication conducted ex parte without fixing the date, time or venue for personal hearing violated the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the right to an oral hearing is independent of filing a written reply, and mere non-participation in response to the notice did not amount to waiver. The assessment order was therefore vitiated, and the appellate orders rejecting the challenge on limitation could not stand. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the proper officer for fresh adjudication after due notice and opportunity of hearing.
GST adjudication conducted ex parte without fixing the date, time or venue for personal hearing violated the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the right to an oral hearing is independent of filing a written reply, and mere non-participation in response to the notice did not amount to waiver. The assessment order was therefore vitiated, and the appellate orders rejecting the challenge on limitation could not stand. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the proper officer for fresh adjudication after due notice and opportunity of hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.