Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
