Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court considered the liability of the petitioner u/s 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax / Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was found that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court held that the order for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 should be set aside, and the petitioner must be given a hearing as per Section 75 (4) of the KGST Act. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The High Court considered the liability of the petitioner u/s 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax / Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was found that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court held that the order for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 should be set aside, and the petitioner must be given a hearing as per Section 75 (4) of the KGST Act. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
