Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidenc...
HC held that the petitioner firm, registered in two different states (U.P. and M.P.), requires further investigation to determine whether they constitute the same legal entity under GST law. The court found procedural irregularities in the ex-parte appeal, specifically the lack of proper notice service to the petitioner. Consequently, the HC set aside the previous orders, including the show cause notice and subsequent administrative actions, and restored the original appeal, granting the petitioner an opportunity to defend against the GST appeal. The petition was partially allowed, emphasizing the importance of due process and proper legal notification.
HC held that the petitioner firm, registered in two different states (U.P. and M.P.), requires further investigation to determine whether they constitute the same legal entity under GST law. The court found procedural irregularities in the ex-parte appeal, specifically the lack of proper notice service to the petitioner. Consequently, the HC set aside the previous orders, including the show cause notice and subsequent administrative actions, and restored the original appeal, granting the petitioner an opportunity to defend against the GST appeal. The petition was partially allowed, emphasizing the importance of due process and proper legal notification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
