Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 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 set aside both the assessment order and rectification order, remanding the matter to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. The Court found that the respondent violated principles of natural justice by issuing the impugned assessment order without providing sufficient opportunities to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's requests for adjournment to file detailed replies with supporting documents and for personal hearing following show cause notices, the respondent proceeded with the assessment. The Court held that when confirming a demand, authorities must provide adequate opportunity of hearing, which was denied in this case, necessitating remand for consideration on merits.
The HC set aside both the assessment order and rectification order, remanding the matter to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. The Court found that the respondent violated principles of natural justice by issuing the impugned assessment order without providing sufficient opportunities to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's requests for adjournment to file detailed replies with supporting documents and for personal hearing following show cause notices, the respondent proceeded with the assessment. The Court held that when confirming a demand, authorities must provide adequate opportunity of hearing, which was denied in this case, necessitating remand for consideration on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.