Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
The High Court quashed the orders passed by the respondent assessing officer for violating principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, despite the petitioner seeking additional time to file replies to show cause notices. The Court remanded the matters back to the respondent for fresh consideration after setting aside the impugned orders, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax demand for each assessment year within six weeks. The case pertained to discrepancies in Input Tax Credits for multiple assessment years from 2018-19 to 2022-23, wherein show cause notices were issued through an online portal, and the petitioner had filed replies but was denied a personal hearing before passing of final orders.
The High Court quashed the orders passed by the respondent assessing officer for violating principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, despite the petitioner seeking additional time to file replies to show cause notices. The Court remanded the matters back to the respondent for fresh consideration after setting aside the impugned orders, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax demand for each assessment year within six weeks. The case pertained to discrepancies in Input Tax Credits for multiple assessment years from 2018-19 to 2022-23, wherein show cause notices were issued through an online portal, and the petitioner had filed replies but was denied a personal hearing before passing of final orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.