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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Visible notices on the GST common portal amounted to substantial compliance with service requirements, so the objection that the last notice was not communicated and that hearing was denied failed. The challenge based on breach of natural justice was rejected because the original show cause notice, reminders and the later notice were available on the dashboard. The court also found no violation of the statutory hearing requirement, holding that the proceedings were under Section 73, the supplementary notice was not time-barred, and the impugned demand matched that notice. As the remaining dispute involved factual findings on merits, the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal.
Visible notices on the GST common portal amounted to substantial compliance with service requirements, so the objection that the last notice was not communicated and that hearing was denied failed. The challenge based on breach of natural justice was rejected because the original show cause notice, reminders and the later notice were available on the dashboard. The court also found no violation of the statutory hearing requirement, holding that the proceedings were under Section 73, the supplementary notice was not time-barred, and the impugned demand matched that notice. As the remaining dispute involved factual findings on merits, the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.