Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Independent professional certification requires pleaded knowledge or complicity for criminal liability; untimely complaints remain barred by limitatio...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
