Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
