Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
