Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 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 assessment orders - The High court examined the timeline of events and observed that the petitioner responded to the show cause notice in January 2024. However, the respondent authority did not afford a personal hearing to the petitioner as required by subsection (4) of Section 75 of the relevant GST enactments. Since the statutory prescription for a personal hearing was not followed, the court concluded that the impugned orders were flawed. Consequently, the court set aside the orders and directed the respondent to reconsider the matters, providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing. The court further nullified the recovery notice associated with the impugned orders and clarified that the stay of recovery remained in effect for pending appellate proceedings.
Validity of assessment orders - The High court examined the timeline of events and observed that the petitioner responded to the show cause notice in January 2024. However, the respondent authority did not afford a personal hearing to the petitioner as required by subsection (4) of Section 75 of the relevant GST enactments. Since the statutory prescription for a personal hearing was not followed, the court concluded that the impugned orders were flawed. Consequently, the court set aside the orders and directed the respondent to reconsider the matters, providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing. The court further nullified the recovery notice associated with the impugned orders and clarified that the stay of recovery remained in effect for pending appellate proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.