AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
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 
