Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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.