Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
HC quashed the impugned order rejecting petitioner's rectification application due to procedural error. The revenue authority incorrectly stated petitioner failed to reply to show cause notice, despite petitioner's timely response dated 22.01.2025 being duly acknowledged in Form GST DRC 06. Court found petitioner established grounds for judicial interference as the order contained factual inaccuracy regarding non-response. Matter remitted to respondent authority with directions to pass fresh order on merits within three months, ensuring petitioner's reply is considered and hearing opportunity provided. Petition allowed by way of remand, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.
HC quashed the impugned order rejecting petitioner's rectification application due to procedural error. The revenue authority incorrectly stated petitioner failed to reply to show cause notice, despite petitioner's timely response dated 22.01.2025 being duly acknowledged in Form GST DRC 06. Court found petitioner established grounds for judicial interference as the order contained factual inaccuracy regarding non-response. Matter remitted to respondent authority with directions to pass fresh order on merits within three months, ensuring petitioner's reply is considered and hearing opportunity provided. Petition allowed by way of remand, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.