Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC held the retrospective cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration invalid because the impugned cancellation order dated 14 Nov 2020 bore no signature or digital signature as mandated by Rule 26(3) CGST Rules and the Respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving compliance; principles of natural justice were thereby infringed. The court found no evidence or sworn statement of a signed/digitally signed order, rejected inferential contentions, and declared the unsigned order to be no order in law until properly signed. Consequentially, the Appellate Authority's 28 Feb 2025 dismissal on limitation grounds shall not survive. Appeal disposed.
The HC held the retrospective cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration invalid because the impugned cancellation order dated 14 Nov 2020 bore no signature or digital signature as mandated by Rule 26(3) CGST Rules and the Respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving compliance; principles of natural justice were thereby infringed. The court found no evidence or sworn statement of a signed/digitally signed order, rejected inferential contentions, and declared the unsigned order to be no order in law until properly signed. Consequentially, the Appellate Authority's 28 Feb 2025 dismissal on limitation grounds shall not survive. Appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
