Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
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...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 set aside the impugned assessment order dated 25.04.2024, holding that service of the show cause notice (SCN) solely via the GST portal was insufficient given the petitioner's lack of awareness and absence of personal hearing. The court emphasized that where no response is received through one mode, the officer must explore alternative service methods under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, such as RPAD, to ensure effective service. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, conditional upon the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order. The setting aside of the original order will take effect only upon such payment. The petition was disposed of by way of remand to safeguard procedural fairness and prevent multiplicity of litigation.
The HC set aside the impugned assessment order dated 25.04.2024, holding that service of the show cause notice (SCN) solely via the GST portal was insufficient given the petitioner's lack of awareness and absence of personal hearing. The court emphasized that where no response is received through one mode, the officer must explore alternative service methods under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, such as RPAD, to ensure effective service. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, conditional upon the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order. The setting aside of the original order will take effect only upon such payment. The petition was disposed of by way of remand to safeguard procedural fairness and prevent multiplicity of litigation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
