Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
