Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The HC set aside an assessment order dated 19.12.2024 for violating principles of natural justice due to ineffective service of show cause notice. While uploading notices on the GST Portal constitutes valid service, the respondent failed to explore alternative service modes under Section 169 of the GST Act when petitioner remained non-responsive. The court held that merely fulfilling empty formalities without ensuring effective communication defeats the purpose and leads to multiplicity of litigation. The matter was remanded to respondent for fresh consideration, conditioned upon petitioner paying 25% of disputed tax amount within four weeks. The petition was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing that officers must apply their minds to ensure meaningful service rather than mechanical compliance.
The HC set aside an assessment order dated 19.12.2024 for violating principles of natural justice due to ineffective service of show cause notice. While uploading notices on the GST Portal constitutes valid service, the respondent failed to explore alternative service modes under Section 169 of the GST Act when petitioner remained non-responsive. The court held that merely fulfilling empty formalities without ensuring effective communication defeats the purpose and leads to multiplicity of litigation. The matter was remanded to respondent for fresh consideration, conditioned upon petitioner paying 25% of disputed tax amount within four weeks. The petition was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing that officers must apply their minds to ensure meaningful service rather than mechanical compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.