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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 95955 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
