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 quashed an ex-parte assessment order dated 02.07.2024 passed without serving proper notice to the petitioner, finding it wholly without jurisdiction and a nullity due to violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that only one operative assessment order can subsist for the same assessment period. A subsequent assessment order dated 12.07.2024, passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing and considering material produced, was deemed valid and tenable. The court emphasized that decisions made after hearing are more authoritative than default decisions, and taxpayers must have opportunity to present their case. The writ petition was disposed of by quashing the ex-parte order while upholding the order passed on merits.
The HC quashed an ex-parte assessment order dated 02.07.2024 passed without serving proper notice to the petitioner, finding it wholly without jurisdiction and a nullity due to violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that only one operative assessment order can subsist for the same assessment period. A subsequent assessment order dated 12.07.2024, passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing and considering material produced, was deemed valid and tenable. The court emphasized that decisions made after hearing are more authoritative than default decisions, and taxpayers must have opportunity to present their case. The writ petition was disposed of by quashing the ex-parte order while upholding the order passed on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.