Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that principles of natural justice were violated when tax authorities provided insufficient time to petitioner for filing reply and personal hearing. The impugned order was deemed arbitrary and illegal as authorities gave only 24 hours notice for hearing and 48 hours for manual reply submission, followed by order passage within 24 hours thereafter. Court criticized departmental practice of solely relying on online portal notifications without RPAD communication. The matter was remanded back for reconsideration with direction to provide adequate opportunity of hearing. Court emphasized that opportunity of hearing must be meaningful rather than nominal, recommending adoption of RPAD notices alongside digital communications to ensure proper service and prevent wastage of departmental time.
HC held that principles of natural justice were violated when tax authorities provided insufficient time to petitioner for filing reply and personal hearing. The impugned order was deemed arbitrary and illegal as authorities gave only 24 hours notice for hearing and 48 hours for manual reply submission, followed by order passage within 24 hours thereafter. Court criticized departmental practice of solely relying on online portal notifications without RPAD communication. The matter was remanded back for reconsideration with direction to provide adequate opportunity of hearing. Court emphasized that opportunity of hearing must be meaningful rather than nominal, recommending adoption of RPAD notices alongside digital communications to ensure proper service and prevent wastage of departmental time.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
