Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
