Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's failure to frame a draft assessment order and directly passing a final order was violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C, rendering the final order a nullity. The court emphasized that it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to frame an order in draft before issuing the final assessment order. Regarding the limitation period u/s 153, the court clarified that it cannot enlarge or expand the statutorily prescribed period for completing the assessment. The court found it unnecessary to examine additional challenges raised against the final assessment orders since the assessment period had expired. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's failure to frame a draft assessment order and directly passing a final order was violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C, rendering the final order a nullity. The court emphasized that it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to frame an order in draft before issuing the final assessment order. Regarding the limitation period u/s 153, the court clarified that it cannot enlarge or expand the statutorily prescribed period for completing the assessment. The court found it unnecessary to examine additional challenges raised against the final assessment orders since the assessment period had expired. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
