Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 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 held that initiation of fresh proceedings on an issue already adjudicated is impermissible; any error apparent on the record must be rectified under Section 161 of the GST Act by the department. The petitioner was wrongly subjected to fresh proceedings culminating in the impugned order, which was subsequently rejected. The Court suo motu impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, as a party and quashed the impugned order. The second respondent was granted liberty to pass an appropriate order incorporating the proposed demand after providing the petitioner a hearing. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC held that initiation of fresh proceedings on an issue already adjudicated is impermissible; any error apparent on the record must be rectified under Section 161 of the GST Act by the department. The petitioner was wrongly subjected to fresh proceedings culminating in the impugned order, which was subsequently rejected. The Court suo motu impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, as a party and quashed the impugned order. The second respondent was granted liberty to pass an appropriate order incorporating the proposed demand after providing the petitioner a hearing. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
