Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
