Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
HC allowed the petition. It held that non-granting of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority to impose penalty u/s 74(9) of the CGST Act violated principles of natural justice. The HC observed that Section 107(11) of the Act does not empower the Appellate Authority to remand the case for such violations, necessitating invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
HC allowed the petition. It held that non-granting of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority to impose penalty u/s 74(9) of the CGST Act violated principles of natural justice. The HC observed that Section 107(11) of the Act does not empower the Appellate Authority to remand the case for such violations, necessitating invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.