Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC quashed GST assessment order dated 22.04.2024 for violation of natural justice principles under Section 75(4) of GST Act, 2017. Despite petitioner filing two detailed replies (25.01.2024 and 14.03.2024) to Form GST DRC-01 notice, respondent authority passed final order without granting mandatory personal hearing. The scheduling of hearing dates (03.01.2024 and 11.03.2024) prior to reply submission deadlines (25.01.2024 and 14.03.2024 respectively) was procedurally improper. Matter remanded back to respondent authority for fresh consideration after providing proper hearing opportunity to petitioner in accordance with statutory provisions.
HC quashed GST assessment order dated 22.04.2024 for violation of natural justice principles under Section 75(4) of GST Act, 2017. Despite petitioner filing two detailed replies (25.01.2024 and 14.03.2024) to Form GST DRC-01 notice, respondent authority passed final order without granting mandatory personal hearing. The scheduling of hearing dates (03.01.2024 and 11.03.2024) prior to reply submission deadlines (25.01.2024 and 14.03.2024 respectively) was procedurally improper. Matter remanded back to respondent authority for fresh consideration after providing proper hearing opportunity to petitioner in accordance with statutory provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.