Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Market value for captive electricity consumption follows industrial consumer tariffs, supporting profit computation for the power generation deduction...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
