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 quashed the retrospective cancellation of GST registration under SS29 of CGST Act, 2017, finding procedural violations. Neither the SCN nor final order provided material evidence supporting the allegation under SS29(2)(e), nor did they notify the petitioner of intended retrospective cancellation. This procedural defect alone invalidated the action. The court clarified that authorities may continue proceedings regarding alleged fraudulent registration, provided the petitioner receives proper notice with supporting evidence. On time limitation, the court referenced Addichem Speciality LLP, confirming that condonation of delay depends on statutory provisions governing the remedy. The March 20, 2024 order was quashed insofar as it retrospectively canceled registration.
The HC quashed the retrospective cancellation of GST registration under SS29 of CGST Act, 2017, finding procedural violations. Neither the SCN nor final order provided material evidence supporting the allegation under SS29(2)(e), nor did they notify the petitioner of intended retrospective cancellation. This procedural defect alone invalidated the action. The court clarified that authorities may continue proceedings regarding alleged fraudulent registration, provided the petitioner receives proper notice with supporting evidence. On time limitation, the court referenced Addichem Speciality LLP, confirming that condonation of delay depends on statutory provisions governing the remedy. The March 20, 2024 order was quashed insofar as it retrospectively canceled registration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
