Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 impugned ex-parte assessment order and subsequent demand under Form DRC 07 were invalid due to violation of natural justice principles, specifically non-service of proper notices and failure to grant an opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017. The Court clarified that uploading notices under incorrect headings did not satisfy statutory requirements. Furthermore, the issuance of a show cause notice without scheduling a personal hearing did not constitute an opportunity for hearing since the authority was still seeking a response. As no personal hearing was provided before passing an adverse order, the statutory procedure was not followed. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural safeguards under the Act.
The HC held that the impugned ex-parte assessment order and subsequent demand under Form DRC 07 were invalid due to violation of natural justice principles, specifically non-service of proper notices and failure to grant an opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017. The Court clarified that uploading notices under incorrect headings did not satisfy statutory requirements. Furthermore, the issuance of a show cause notice without scheduling a personal hearing did not constitute an opportunity for hearing since the authority was still seeking a response. As no personal hearing was provided before passing an adverse order, the statutory procedure was not followed. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural safeguards under the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.