Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the adjudicatory process violated principles of natural justice because no date for personal hearing was specified in the SCN and the petitioner company was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the merits; however, the court found the CGST Department not at fault insofar as notices and the impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal and the petitioner failed to establish non-service. The petition for remand to the adjudicating authority was refused. In view of the petitioner's absence of a merits hearing, the HC permitted the petitioner company to pursue its statutory appellate remedy before the appropriate Appellate Authority. Petition disposed.
The HC held that the adjudicatory process violated principles of natural justice because no date for personal hearing was specified in the SCN and the petitioner company was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the merits; however, the court found the CGST Department not at fault insofar as notices and the impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal and the petitioner failed to establish non-service. The petition for remand to the adjudicating authority was refused. In view of the petitioner's absence of a merits hearing, the HC permitted the petitioner company to pursue its statutory appellate remedy before the appropriate Appellate Authority. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
