Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The impugned order violated principles of natural justice by failing to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, despite a written request, contravening Section 75(4) of the MGST Act. The order was made without adhering to the statutory requirement of granting a hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated against the person chargeable with tax or penalty. Coordinate Benches in similar cases have set aside orders that disregarded Section 75(4)'s mandate of hearing the petitioners. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17 January 2024 and the subsequent recovery notice dated 6 September 2024 were quashed, and the petition was disposed of.
The impugned order violated principles of natural justice by failing to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, despite a written request, contravening Section 75(4) of the MGST Act. The order was made without adhering to the statutory requirement of granting a hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated against the person chargeable with tax or penalty. Coordinate Benches in similar cases have set aside orders that disregarded Section 75(4)'s mandate of hearing the petitioners. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17 January 2024 and the subsequent recovery notice dated 6 September 2024 were quashed, and the petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
