Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 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 the principles of natural justice - The petitioners asserted that since an adverse decision was made against them without a personal hearing, it was in contravention of Section 75(4) of the CGST/MGST Act. - The petitioners, a private company, challenged the order on the grounds that they were not afforded a personal hearing despite requesting one and that the discrepancies alleged against them were unsubstantiated. - Since the petitioners had requested a personal hearing in their reply, the failure of Respondent No. 3 to provide one was deemed a violation of the law. - Matter restored back.
Violation of the principles of natural justice - The petitioners asserted that since an adverse decision was made against them without a personal hearing, it was in contravention of Section 75(4) of the CGST/MGST Act. - The petitioners, a private company, challenged the order on the grounds that they were not afforded a personal hearing despite requesting one and that the discrepancies alleged against them were unsubstantiated. - Since the petitioners had requested a personal hearing in their reply, the failure of Respondent No. 3 to provide one was deemed a violation of the law. - Matter restored back.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.