Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Violation of principles of natural justice challenged through...
Petition dismissed for violation of natural justice principles. Inadequate time given for GSTR mismatch reply. Adjournment denied due to no written reply.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Violation of principles of natural justice challenged through ex-parte demand order and show cause notice (SCN). Impugned SCN provided less time than stipulated u/s 73(2) of UP GST Act for submitting reply, citing mismatch in GSTR filed. Court held that adjournment application would have been entertained if petitioner had given written reply to SCN and then sought adjournment. Neither application dated 23.1.2024 nor 15.4.2024 received by respondents. Court opined law relied upon by petitioner's counsel from M/s Mohan Agencies case inapplicable. Petition dismissed.
Violation of principles of natural justice challenged through ex-parte demand order and show cause notice (SCN). Impugned SCN provided less time than stipulated u/s 73(2) of UP GST Act for submitting reply, citing mismatch in GSTR filed. Court held that adjournment application would have been entertained if petitioner had given written reply to SCN and then sought adjournment. Neither application dated 23.1.2024 nor 15.4.2024 received by respondents. Court opined law relied upon by petitioner's counsel from M/s Mohan Agencies case inapplicable. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.