Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 96092 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.