Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
The court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, quashing the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-16, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner was unaware of the issuance of the reminder and the passing of the orders, and could not appear before the authority or question the validity of the orders within the limitation period. Following the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd [2024 (7) TMI 1543 - Allahabad High Court], the court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as there was no material to reject the contention that the impugned order was not reflected under the "view notices and orders" tab. The court found that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy.
The court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, quashing the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-16, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner was unaware of the issuance of the reminder and the passing of the orders, and could not appear before the authority or question the validity of the orders within the limitation period. Following the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd [2024 (7) TMI 1543 - Allahabad High Court], the court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as there was no material to reject the contention that the impugned order was not reflected under the "view notices and orders" tab. The court found that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
