Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The HC quashed and set aside the impugned order of tax and penalty levy under Sec. 129(3) of the GST Act due to a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent authorities passed the order on the same day as the interception of goods without granting the petitioner adequate opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice, despite the statutory seven-day period for such orders. The court declined to examine the merits of the levy, focusing solely on procedural impropriety. The matter was remanded to the respondent authorities for reconsideration and to afford the petitioner a proper hearing. The petition was allowed accordingly.
The HC quashed and set aside the impugned order of tax and penalty levy under Sec. 129(3) of the GST Act due to a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent authorities passed the order on the same day as the interception of goods without granting the petitioner adequate opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice, despite the statutory seven-day period for such orders. The court declined to examine the merits of the levy, focusing solely on procedural impropriety. The matter was remanded to the respondent authorities for reconsideration and to afford the petitioner a proper hearing. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.