Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The petitioner was not served with notices/communications, resulting in their failure to file a reply within the stipulated time. As per the proviso to Rule 86B of the GST Rules, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax amount. However, the petitioner, being unaware of the show cause notice, failed to appear for personal hearing before the respondent authority. Consequently, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order, violating the principles of natural justice. The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 and remanded the matter to the respondent authority for fresh consideration, allowing the petition through remand, as it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits.
The petitioner was not served with notices/communications, resulting in their failure to file a reply within the stipulated time. As per the proviso to Rule 86B of the GST Rules, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax amount. However, the petitioner, being unaware of the show cause notice, failed to appear for personal hearing before the respondent authority. Consequently, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order, violating the principles of natural justice. The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 and remanded the matter to the respondent authority for fresh consideration, allowing the petition through remand, as it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
