Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
The High Court quashed the orders dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner firm on grounds of limitation and the order passed u/s 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The managing partner of the petitioner firm was critically ill with cancer from March to August 2022, and the firm had uploaded returns for March, April, and May 2022. However, the respondent department failed to grant an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 04.04.2022, violating the principles of natural justice u/s 75(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that despite the firm's inability to reply to the notice due to the managing partner's illness, one fair chance should have been given to comply with natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the respondent to decide the show-cause notice after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The High Court quashed the orders dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner firm on grounds of limitation and the order passed u/s 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The managing partner of the petitioner firm was critically ill with cancer from March to August 2022, and the firm had uploaded returns for March, April, and May 2022. However, the respondent department failed to grant an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 04.04.2022, violating the principles of natural justice u/s 75(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that despite the firm's inability to reply to the notice due to the managing partner's illness, one fair chance should have been given to comply with natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the respondent to decide the show-cause notice after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.