Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
881 to 900 of 95916 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.