Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 
