Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Cancellation of GST registration without providing opportunity to be heard violated principles of natural justice. Appeal filed by petitioner rejected due to expiry of limitation period u/s 107 of CGST Act, 2017. Show cause notice issued to petitioner for failure to furnish returns for six consecutive months. Petitioner claimed no reply filed within stipulated period, denying principles of natural justice. However, petitioner failed to furnish returns for six months and filed appeal after delay of one year and twenty days, beyond three-month limitation period u/s 107(1). Petitioner's lethargic approach in not filing returns and delayed appeal filing led to dismissal of writ petition, as no perversity found in cancellation order or appellate order beyond statutory limitation period.
Cancellation of GST registration without providing opportunity to be heard violated principles of natural justice. Appeal filed by petitioner rejected due to expiry of limitation period u/s 107 of CGST Act, 2017. Show cause notice issued to petitioner for failure to furnish returns for six consecutive months. Petitioner claimed no reply filed within stipulated period, denying principles of natural justice. However, petitioner failed to furnish returns for six months and filed appeal after delay of one year and twenty days, beyond three-month limitation period u/s 107(1). Petitioner's lethargic approach in not filing returns and delayed appeal filing led to dismissal of writ petition, as no perversity found in cancellation order or appellate order beyond statutory limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.