Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Delhi High Court examined the validity of an order issued u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning lack of communication of notice to the petitioner, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order indicated that the taxpayer did not respond or appear in person, resulting in an ex-parte demand being created. The court noted that despite providing opportunities for a reply and a personal hearing, the taxpayer remained silent. The court held that the petitioner should be given a chance to respond to the Show Cause Notice, and the matter should be re-adjudicated. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The Delhi High Court examined the validity of an order issued u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning lack of communication of notice to the petitioner, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order indicated that the taxpayer did not respond or appear in person, resulting in an ex-parte demand being created. The court noted that despite providing opportunities for a reply and a personal hearing, the taxpayer remained silent. The court held that the petitioner should be given a chance to respond to the Show Cause Notice, and the matter should be re-adjudicated. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
