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...
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.