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 set aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 due to violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents had uploaded show cause notices only on the GST Portal under "Additional Notice" tab without physical service, which went unnoticed by the petitioner. Although the petitioner's former consultant filed a reply on 20.06.2024, the respondents passed an order raising tax/interest/penalty demands without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. The petitioner only became aware of the rejection of their reply on 04.01.2025 when receiving a notice dated 02.01.2025. The Court remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration, allowing the petition.
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 due to violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents had uploaded show cause notices only on the GST Portal under "Additional Notice" tab without physical service, which went unnoticed by the petitioner. Although the petitioner's former consultant filed a reply on 20.06.2024, the respondents passed an order raising tax/interest/penalty demands without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. The petitioner only became aware of the rejection of their reply on 04.01.2025 when receiving a notice dated 02.01.2025. The Court remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration, allowing the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.