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...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the tax authorities violated principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's explanation regarding duplication of taxable supply amounts in Form GSTR-1. The petitioner had demonstrated in Form GST ASMT-11 that there was no actual discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 returns, as the data had been reconciled. Despite this, authorities proceeded to issue notice under section 73 and passed an order-in-original without providing the mandatory hearing opportunity required by section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court allowed the petition, remanding the matter to respondent no.3 for a fresh de novo order after providing the petitioner proper hearing opportunity.
The HC held that the tax authorities violated principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's explanation regarding duplication of taxable supply amounts in Form GSTR-1. The petitioner had demonstrated in Form GST ASMT-11 that there was no actual discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 returns, as the data had been reconciled. Despite this, authorities proceeded to issue notice under section 73 and passed an order-in-original without providing the mandatory hearing opportunity required by section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court allowed the petition, remanding the matter to respondent no.3 for a fresh de novo order after providing the petitioner proper hearing opportunity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
