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 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Violation of principles of natural justice - Seeking proportionate refund of cess i.e., cess paid on coal which was utilized in zero-rated supplies - The High Court noted that the fixing of the personal hearing date before the expiry of the 15-day period for submitting a reply to the show-cause notice deprived the petitioner of adequate time to respond effectively. The court highlighted the necessity of allowing parties sufficient time to prepare and present their case. - The rejection order of the refund claim was criticized for being a non-speaking order, as it failed to provide reasons for the rejection, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 92(3) of the Rules. - Matter restored back for re-adjudication.
Violation of principles of natural justice - Seeking proportionate refund of cess i.e., cess paid on coal which was utilized in zero-rated supplies - The High Court noted that the fixing of the personal hearing date before the expiry of the 15-day period for submitting a reply to the show-cause notice deprived the petitioner of adequate time to respond effectively. The court highlighted the necessity of allowing parties sufficient time to prepare and present their case. - The rejection order of the refund claim was criticized for being a non-speaking order, as it failed to provide reasons for the rejection, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 92(3) of the Rules. - Matter restored back for re-adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
