Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
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...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 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 quashed and set aside the impugned order dated April 19, 2024, holding that the petitioner was denied principles of natural justice due to improper service of notices under section 73 of the Act via the GST Portal's "Additional Notices and Orders" tab, which the petitioner did not access. The court found the petitioner entitled to benefit of doubt, as no evidence showed the notices appeared under the "view notices and orders" tab, preventing the petitioner from responding or challenging the order within limitation. The HC directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice with at least 15 days' clear period in accordance with law, allowing further proceedings thereafter. The petition was allowed without calling for counter affidavits or relegating to statutory remedies, emphasizing procedural fairness.
The HC quashed and set aside the impugned order dated April 19, 2024, holding that the petitioner was denied principles of natural justice due to improper service of notices under section 73 of the Act via the GST Portal's "Additional Notices and Orders" tab, which the petitioner did not access. The court found the petitioner entitled to benefit of doubt, as no evidence showed the notices appeared under the "view notices and orders" tab, preventing the petitioner from responding or challenging the order within limitation. The HC directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice with at least 15 days' clear period in accordance with law, allowing further proceedings thereafter. The petition was allowed without calling for counter affidavits or relegating to statutory remedies, emphasizing procedural fairness.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
