Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
The High Court, considering that the petitioner's certain pleas were not taken into account while issuing the notice u/s 74(1) and that the limitation for filing an appeal had been lost, directed that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the demanded amount of Rs. 73,87,225.92, after adjusting any amount already paid within four weeks, the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 shall stand set aside. The respondent would then afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order, upholding the principles of natural justice.
The High Court, considering that the petitioner's certain pleas were not taken into account while issuing the notice u/s 74(1) and that the limitation for filing an appeal had been lost, directed that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the demanded amount of Rs. 73,87,225.92, after adjusting any amount already paid within four weeks, the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 shall stand set aside. The respondent would then afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order, upholding the principles of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.