Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Validity of demand with penalty u/s 73 of CGST Act - Petitioner argued that their detailed replies were not adequately considered, and they were not given an opportunity to clarify or provide further documents. The court found merit in these contentions, criticizing the proper officer for dismissing the petitioner's reply without proper assessment and for not providing opportunities for clarification. Consequently, the High court set aside the impugned order and directed the matter to be remitted for re-adjudication, emphasizing the importance of following principles of natural justice and affording parties due process.
Validity of demand with penalty u/s 73 of CGST Act - Petitioner argued that their detailed replies were not adequately considered, and they were not given an opportunity to clarify or provide further documents. The court found merit in these contentions, criticizing the proper officer for dismissing the petitioner's reply without proper assessment and for not providing opportunities for clarification. Consequently, the High court set aside the impugned order and directed the matter to be remitted for re-adjudication, emphasizing the importance of following principles of natural justice and affording parties due process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.