Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.