Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
