Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Uploading GST notices or orders solely in the Common Portal's "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab was not authorised service because the notified portal functions and Rules did not prescribe that tab as a statutory mode of service. Such uploading could not commence the appeal limitation period, particularly where the interface did not prominently disclose communications. E-mail service required transmission of the notice or order itself to the registered e-mail address; an intimation alone was insufficient. Ex parte proceedings based solely on invalid portal service were restored for reply and hearing, while affected appeals could be considered on merits. However, an assessee that replied to and contested a show-cause notice could not later challenge the resulting order solely for defective portal service.
Uploading GST notices or orders solely in the Common Portal's "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab was not authorised service because the notified portal functions and Rules did not prescribe that tab as a statutory mode of service. Such uploading could not commence the appeal limitation period, particularly where the interface did not prominently disclose communications. E-mail service required transmission of the notice or order itself to the registered e-mail address; an intimation alone was insufficient. Ex parte proceedings based solely on invalid portal service were restored for reply and hearing, while affected appeals could be considered on merits. However, an assessee that replied to and contested a show-cause notice could not later challenge the resulting order solely for defective portal service.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.