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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96091 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court quashed the summary order issued under the GST Act without a detailed order, finding it a violation of principles of natural justice. The court observed that the summary order merely mentioned the order number, tax period, financial year, issues involved, description of goods, and demand details, but lacked a detailed order supporting it. Consequently, the court set aside the summary order, the consequent recovery action, and the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts. The respondents were directed to pass an appropriate order for lifting the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts forthwith.
The High Court quashed the summary order issued under the GST Act without a detailed order, finding it a violation of principles of natural justice. The court observed that the summary order merely mentioned the order number, tax period, financial year, issues involved, description of goods, and demand details, but lacked a detailed order supporting it. Consequently, the court set aside the summary order, the consequent recovery action, and the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts. The respondents were directed to pass an appropriate order for lifting the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts forthwith.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
