Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
