Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Co-operative deduction eligibility excludes refund and commercial-bank interest, while qualifying co-operative investments require entity-wise verific...
Enhanced tax rate on surrendered unexplained income applies prospectively, while cash-deposit telescoping requires verification of available surrender...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
