Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Administrative fraud classification suspension does not halt independent criminal investigation or warrant-based searches into alleged economic offenc...
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.