Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
