Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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.