Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
