Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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 
