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...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 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" ?
HC dismissed the petition challenging tax order, finding the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in responding to show cause notices and personal hearing opportunities. Despite receiving multiple notices dated 22nd July, 2022 and 3rd August, 2024, the petitioner neither filed replies nor attended hearings. The court held that the administrative authority provided fair opportunity for hearing, and the petitioner's lack of proactive engagement precluded claims of procedural impropriety. The order under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 was upheld, and the petition was disposed of without substantive intervention.
HC dismissed the petition challenging tax order, finding the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in responding to show cause notices and personal hearing opportunities. Despite receiving multiple notices dated 22nd July, 2022 and 3rd August, 2024, the petitioner neither filed replies nor attended hearings. The court held that the administrative authority provided fair opportunity for hearing, and the petitioner's lack of proactive engagement precluded claims of procedural impropriety. The order under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 was upheld, and the petition was disposed of without substantive intervention.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.