Transfer pricing comparables and operating income principles applied to software development services, with exclusions, inclusions, and tax credit ver...
Transfer pricing on performance guarantees and overdue receivables deleted where warranty obligations were embedded and working capital adjustment alr...
The case pertains to a violation of the principles of natural justice, wherein the petitioner's right to an opportunity for personal hearing, as provided under the law, was violated. The court held that Section 75 of the RGST Act/CGST Act contains provisions related to tax determination. Sub-section (2) states that if an Appellate Authority, Tribunal, or Court concludes that the notice issued u/s 74(1) is unsustainable due to non-establishment of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax, the proper officer shall determine the tax payable as if the notice was issued u/s 73(1). The respondents admitted that although they intended to grant an opportunity for personal hearing and uploaded notices, the petitioner claimed these were not reflected on their GSTIN Portal. The court found the statutory mandate was not complied with, and impugned orders were passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing. Consequently, the matters were remanded to the competent authority to provide an opportunity for personal hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
The case pertains to a violation of the principles of natural justice, wherein the petitioner's right to an opportunity for personal hearing, as provided under the law, was violated. The court held that Section 75 of the RGST Act/CGST Act contains provisions related to tax determination. Sub-section (2) states that if an Appellate Authority, Tribunal, or Court concludes that the notice issued u/s 74(1) is unsustainable due to non-establishment of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax, the proper officer shall determine the tax payable as if the notice was issued u/s 73(1). The respondents admitted that although they intended to grant an opportunity for personal hearing and uploaded notices, the petitioner claimed these were not reflected on their GSTIN Portal. The court found the statutory mandate was not complied with, and impugned orders were passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing. Consequently, the matters were remanded to the competent authority to provide an opportunity for personal hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
