Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The High Court examined the validity of an assessment order issued without offering a personal hearing, deeming it a breach of natural justice. The case was transferred from the National Faceless Assessment Center to the jurisdictional AO u/s 144B(8). The respondent rejected the petitioner's request for a hearing via video conference due to purported lack of functionality, contrary to provisions in section 144B and a CBDT circular. The court found the respondent's claim baseless as the circular mandated a hearing either via video conference or in a designated area. The petitioner's right to a hearing was upheld, dismissing the respondent's argument of alternative appeal options. The assessment order was annulled, and the matter was remanded for a proper hearing in line with the CBDT circular.
The High Court examined the validity of an assessment order issued without offering a personal hearing, deeming it a breach of natural justice. The case was transferred from the National Faceless Assessment Center to the jurisdictional AO u/s 144B(8). The respondent rejected the petitioner's request for a hearing via video conference due to purported lack of functionality, contrary to provisions in section 144B and a CBDT circular. The court found the respondent's claim baseless as the circular mandated a hearing either via video conference or in a designated area. The petitioner's right to a hearing was upheld, dismissing the respondent's argument of alternative appeal options. The assessment order was annulled, and the matter was remanded for a proper hearing in line with the CBDT circular.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
