Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
The HC held that the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 was cryptic, non-speaking, and passed without application of mind, violating the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioners a mandatory personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the MPGST Act. This procedural lapse constituted an apparent error of law, vitiating the proceedings. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the authority for a de novo decision after affording the petitioners the opportunity of personal hearing. The petitions were allowed on this basis.
The HC held that the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 was cryptic, non-speaking, and passed without application of mind, violating the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioners a mandatory personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the MPGST Act. This procedural lapse constituted an apparent error of law, vitiating the proceedings. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the authority for a de novo decision after affording the petitioners the opportunity of personal hearing. The petitions were allowed on this basis.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
