Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3381 to 3400 of 96456 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 4823 
Join Channel 
