Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Page of 4888
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 97755 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 set aside the cancellation of the petitioner's registration, finding that the impugned order lacked application of mind and did not assign reasons, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The cancellation was not in accordance with the prescribed grounds under Section 29 of the GST Act. The petitioner's revocation application was wrongly rejected for non-submission of a reply to the show cause notice, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed without reasons. The court held that the doctrine of merger does not apply where the cancellation order is unreasoned. The limitation ground cited in rejecting the appeal was also found untenable. Consequently, the petition was allowed, reinstating the petitioner's registration.
The HC set aside the cancellation of the petitioner's registration, finding that the impugned order lacked application of mind and did not assign reasons, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The cancellation was not in accordance with the prescribed grounds under Section 29 of the GST Act. The petitioner's revocation application was wrongly rejected for non-submission of a reply to the show cause notice, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed without reasons. The court held that the doctrine of merger does not apply where the cancellation order is unreasoned. The limitation ground cited in rejecting the appeal was also found untenable. Consequently, the petition was allowed, reinstating the petitioner's registration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
