Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 
