Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 95875 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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
