Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
