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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The petitioner challenged the differential tax liability demand for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22 and the attachment of the bank account. The court observed that although the respondent issued Form DRC-01A, and the petitioner replied, the subsequent Form DRC-01 was uploaded on the portal without the petitioner's knowledge. The petitioner blamed the accountant for not appearing before the authority. However, the court held that the assessee is responsible for appearing before the authority. Once the show cause notice is uploaded on the portal, the petitioner should have filed a reply within the stipulated time. The petitioner cannot blame the department for not providing a physical copy. The court opined that an opportunity to file a reply and a personal hearing before the authority should be granted to the petitioner, as the impugned orders were passed ex-parte, violating natural justice principles. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and disposed of the petition.
The petitioner challenged the differential tax liability demand for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22 and the attachment of the bank account. The court observed that although the respondent issued Form DRC-01A, and the petitioner replied, the subsequent Form DRC-01 was uploaded on the portal without the petitioner's knowledge. The petitioner blamed the accountant for not appearing before the authority. However, the court held that the assessee is responsible for appearing before the authority. Once the show cause notice is uploaded on the portal, the petitioner should have filed a reply within the stipulated time. The petitioner cannot blame the department for not providing a physical copy. The court opined that an opportunity to file a reply and a personal hearing before the authority should be granted to the petitioner, as the impugned orders were passed ex-parte, violating natural justice principles. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and disposed of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
