Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
