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" ?
Rectification of an ex parte GST adjudication order cannot become a merits review through another ex parte order. Where the authority omitted to consider the assessee's replies, the defect went to the root of adjudication and required recall of the original order followed by a fresh personal hearing. Although the authority could correct an apparent error on its own motion and exercise inherent procedural-review power to cure denial of hearing, it could not sustain a revised demand without considering the replies and hearing the assessee. The subsequent ex parte rectification order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing.
Rectification of an ex parte GST adjudication order cannot become a merits review through another ex parte order. Where the authority omitted to consider the assessee's replies, the defect went to the root of adjudication and required recall of the original order followed by a fresh personal hearing. Although the authority could correct an apparent error on its own motion and exercise inherent procedural-review power to cure denial of hearing, it could not sustain a revised demand without considering the replies and hearing the assessee. The subsequent ex parte rectification order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.