Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
