Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.