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...
Dismissal of an appeal by the appellate authority due to procedural defects, including the failure to submit a Board Resolution appointing the authorized signatory, the non-mentioning of the signatory's name, delay in filing the appeal, and incorrect mode of pre-deposit payment. The High Court held that the appellant was not given an opportunity to rectify these defects, which are minor procedural lapses. Relying on precedents, the court emphasized that justice cannot be denied for failure to comply with procedures without allowing the appellant to rectify the defects. The court also addressed the issue of pre-deposit payment through DRC-03, citing a previous case where the High Court directed the concerned authority to issue clarification on this industry-wide issue. Consequently, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication by the appellate authority.
Dismissal of an appeal by the appellate authority due to procedural defects, including the failure to submit a Board Resolution appointing the authorized signatory, the non-mentioning of the signatory's name, delay in filing the appeal, and incorrect mode of pre-deposit payment. The High Court held that the appellant was not given an opportunity to rectify these defects, which are minor procedural lapses. Relying on precedents, the court emphasized that justice cannot be denied for failure to comply with procedures without allowing the appellant to rectify the defects. The court also addressed the issue of pre-deposit payment through DRC-03, citing a previous case where the High Court directed the concerned authority to issue clarification on this industry-wide issue. Consequently, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication by the appellate authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
