Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
