Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
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 4921 
