Corporate insolvency resolution process amended with expanded disclosure, guarantor asset transfer rules, and new dissolution and restoration procedur...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2621 to 2640 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Judicial review of an assessment order was conducted due to discrepancies between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner's replies were not considered, violating natural justice principles. The High Court held the order unsustainable as the petitioner's replies were not taken into account while recording conclusions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner and issue a fresh order after considering the petitioner's replies and annexed documents.
Judicial review of an assessment order was conducted due to discrepancies between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner's replies were not considered, violating natural justice principles. The High Court held the order unsustainable as the petitioner's replies were not taken into account while recording conclusions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner and issue a fresh order after considering the petitioner's replies and annexed documents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.