Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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.