Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
The HC held that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the GST Act because no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The court quashed the impugned order insofar as it adjudicated the petitioner's claim for input tax credit purportedly barred by limitation under Section 16(4) CGST Act, 2017, set aside the impugned order dated 13.04.2024, and remitted the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is to be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and permitted to establish the claim on merits. Petition disposed of by way of remand.
The HC held that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the GST Act because no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The court quashed the impugned order insofar as it adjudicated the petitioner's claim for input tax credit purportedly barred by limitation under Section 16(4) CGST Act, 2017, set aside the impugned order dated 13.04.2024, and remitted the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is to be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and permitted to establish the claim on merits. Petition disposed of by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
