Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
HC held that cancellation of GST registration and rejection of the revocation application were vitiated by breach of natural justice. The authority had invited and received a reply but rejected it by a cryptic order without addressing the defence or recording reasons, making the decision arbitrary and non-speaking. The cancellation and revocation notices were also defective because the hearing date was fixed before expiry of the time granted to reply, denying a meaningful opportunity of hearing. Although the general rule favours the statutory appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remained available where the impugned orders were patently illegal, arbitrary, or passed without fair hearing. The impugned orders were set aside and the writ petition was entertained.
HC held that cancellation of GST registration and rejection of the revocation application were vitiated by breach of natural justice. The authority had invited and received a reply but rejected it by a cryptic order without addressing the defence or recording reasons, making the decision arbitrary and non-speaking. The cancellation and revocation notices were also defective because the hearing date was fixed before expiry of the time granted to reply, denying a meaningful opportunity of hearing. Although the general rule favours the statutory appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remained available where the impugned orders were patently illegal, arbitrary, or passed without fair hearing. The impugned orders were set aside and the writ petition was entertained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
