Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
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...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Validity Of Order passed u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“the Act”] - Demand of GST - The Delhi High Court addressed a case wherein the petitioner contested an order creating a demand against them without the issuance of a show cause notice or DRC-01 beforehand. Acknowledging the absence of such notices, the Court ruled that the impugned order, purportedly passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, violated procedural requirements. Consequently, the Court quashed the order, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice. - The Court clarified that it would be open to the respondents to pass an appropriate order after giving a proper show cause notice and an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
Validity Of Order passed u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“the Act”] - Demand of GST - The Delhi High Court addressed a case wherein the petitioner contested an order creating a demand against them without the issuance of a show cause notice or DRC-01 beforehand. Acknowledging the absence of such notices, the Court ruled that the impugned order, purportedly passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, violated procedural requirements. Consequently, the Court quashed the order, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice. - The Court clarified that it would be open to the respondents to pass an appropriate order after giving a proper show cause notice and an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.