Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The HC found that service of show cause notices solely by uploading on the GST portal, without exploring alternate modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act, violated principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing. The impugned ex parte order dated 17.12.2024 was set aside due to inadequate service and lack of personal hearing. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order. The setting aside of the order will take effect only upon such payment. The Court emphasized that reliance on a single mode of notice without due diligence to ensure effective service undermines the objectives of the GST Act and leads to unnecessary litigation, thereby wasting judicial and administrative resources. The petition was disposed accordingly.
The HC found that service of show cause notices solely by uploading on the GST portal, without exploring alternate modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act, violated principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing. The impugned ex parte order dated 17.12.2024 was set aside due to inadequate service and lack of personal hearing. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order. The setting aside of the order will take effect only upon such payment. The Court emphasized that reliance on a single mode of notice without due diligence to ensure effective service undermines the objectives of the GST Act and leads to unnecessary litigation, thereby wasting judicial and administrative resources. The petition was disposed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
