Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The HC held that the adjudicating authority's cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration violated principles of natural justice because no show-cause notice or detailed reasons were furnished, rendering the impugned order cryptic and unsustainable. The court further determined that under section 107(11) the appellate authority lacks power to remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a "second inning"; having concluded the original order could not be sustained, the appellate remand was unjustified. Accordingly, the HC set aside the portion of the impugned appellate order remanding the matter to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and quashed the subsequent order; petition allowed in favor of the petitioner.
The HC held that the adjudicating authority's cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration violated principles of natural justice because no show-cause notice or detailed reasons were furnished, rendering the impugned order cryptic and unsustainable. The court further determined that under section 107(11) the appellate authority lacks power to remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a "second inning"; having concluded the original order could not be sustained, the appellate remand was unjustified. Accordingly, the HC set aside the portion of the impugned appellate order remanding the matter to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and quashed the subsequent order; petition allowed in favor of the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.