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" ?
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the order issued under section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, on grounds of alleged violation of natural justice. The court held that the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing but failed to appear, distinguishing non-appearance from denial of hearing. The petitioner's claim of seeking additional time was found insufficient as the hearing date was already fixed. The court ruled that the alleged procedural lapse did not amount to a violation of natural justice. Disputes regarding the merits of the order fall within statutory remedies, which the petitioner was liberty to pursue. Consequently, the petition was dismissed while preserving the petitioner's right to statutory recourse.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the order issued under section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, on grounds of alleged violation of natural justice. The court held that the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing but failed to appear, distinguishing non-appearance from denial of hearing. The petitioner's claim of seeking additional time was found insufficient as the hearing date was already fixed. The court ruled that the alleged procedural lapse did not amount to a violation of natural justice. Disputes regarding the merits of the order fall within statutory remedies, which the petitioner was liberty to pursue. Consequently, the petition was dismissed while preserving the petitioner's right to statutory recourse.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
