Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
