Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Patna-II, holding that the petitioner's reply was not duly considered, resulting in a violation of natural justice. The authority determined service tax liability due to the petitioner's failure to furnish work agreements and payment certificates for specified items, but did not issue a further show cause notice to allow submission of such documents. The Court found this omission procedurally unfair and interfered with the order, remanding the matter to the concerned authority for fresh consideration in accordance with principles of natural justice. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Patna-II, holding that the petitioner's reply was not duly considered, resulting in a violation of natural justice. The authority determined service tax liability due to the petitioner's failure to furnish work agreements and payment certificates for specified items, but did not issue a further show cause notice to allow submission of such documents. The Court found this omission procedurally unfair and interfered with the order, remanding the matter to the concerned authority for fresh consideration in accordance with principles of natural justice. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.