Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
The petitioner contested a demand raised against them u/s 74 of the GST Act for a substantial amount, claiming that the order was passed without affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, thus violating their rights under the principles of natural justice. - The High Court referred to previous judgments, including one stating that under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, it is mandatory to grant a personal hearing where any adverse decision is contemplated against the person chargeable with tax or penalty, even without a specific request for such hearing. The Court held that the authority must afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing any adverse order, as clarified in previous judgments.
The petitioner contested a demand raised against them u/s 74 of the GST Act for a substantial amount, claiming that the order was passed without affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, thus violating their rights under the principles of natural justice. - The High Court referred to previous judgments, including one stating that under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, it is mandatory to grant a personal hearing where any adverse decision is contemplated against the person chargeable with tax or penalty, even without a specific request for such hearing. The Court held that the authority must afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing any adverse order, as clarified in previous judgments.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.