Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Validity of assessment order - Violation of Stay Order against the operation of a notification extending the period of limitation - The High Court acknowledges the petitioner's contention regarding the stay order. It notes that the impugned order was indeed passed during the pendency of a stay against the operation of the notification extending the period of limitation. This is a violation of the stay order, constituting a procedural irregularity. - Regarding the jurisdictional conflict, the Court concluded that without notification for cross-empowerment, authorities from one jurisdiction cannot initiate proceedings against an assessee assigned to the other jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned order was quashed, with liberty given to the State authorities to proceed in accordance with established legal principles.
Validity of assessment order - Violation of Stay Order against the operation of a notification extending the period of limitation - The High Court acknowledges the petitioner's contention regarding the stay order. It notes that the impugned order was indeed passed during the pendency of a stay against the operation of the notification extending the period of limitation. This is a violation of the stay order, constituting a procedural irregularity. - Regarding the jurisdictional conflict, the Court concluded that without notification for cross-empowerment, authorities from one jurisdiction cannot initiate proceedings against an assessee assigned to the other jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned order was quashed, with liberty given to the State authorities to proceed in accordance with established legal principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
