Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The High Court found procedural irregularities in a faceless assessment process. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not refer to summons u/s 133(6) in the show cause notice, leading to a variance between the notice and the assessment order u/s 144B. The AO failed to provide a copy of replies received u/s 133(6) and did not allow cross-examination. Citing previous cases, the Court quashed the assessment order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the AO to provide all relevant documents and allow cross-examination.
The High Court found procedural irregularities in a faceless assessment process. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not refer to summons u/s 133(6) in the show cause notice, leading to a variance between the notice and the assessment order u/s 144B. The AO failed to provide a copy of replies received u/s 133(6) and did not allow cross-examination. Citing previous cases, the Court quashed the assessment order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the AO to provide all relevant documents and allow cross-examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
