Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Arbitration of SEZ sub-lease monetary claims preserves rent, maintenance, termination, improvements and damages disputes while unused premises are vac...
Scientific research approval grants a research association tax recognition, subject to annual donor reporting, certification, and regulatory complianc...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97820 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 the procedure under Section 144C(1) is mandatory, requiring the assessing officer to send a draft of the proposed assessment order to the petitioner when a prejudicial variation is proposed. The AO's failure to comply was a fatal jurisdictional error. The Court rejected the AO's reliance on Circular No.5/2010, which incorrectly interpreted Section 144C(1), affirming that the Board has no authority to contravene statutory provisions. The petitioner's writ petitions were allowed, as remitting the matter for fresh assessment was impermissible due to the expiration of the limitation period under Section 153. Consequently, the impugned assessments were quashed, and no further proceedings could be initiated.
The HC held that the procedure under Section 144C(1) is mandatory, requiring the assessing officer to send a draft of the proposed assessment order to the petitioner when a prejudicial variation is proposed. The AO's failure to comply was a fatal jurisdictional error. The Court rejected the AO's reliance on Circular No.5/2010, which incorrectly interpreted Section 144C(1), affirming that the Board has no authority to contravene statutory provisions. The petitioner's writ petitions were allowed, as remitting the matter for fresh assessment was impermissible due to the expiration of the limitation period under Section 153. Consequently, the impugned assessments were quashed, and no further proceedings could be initiated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
