Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
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...
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.