Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 96092 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 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
