Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The HC dismissed the writ petition and upheld the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 cancelling the petitioner's registration, finding no breach of natural justice. The court held that the authority had issued notice of a personal hearing, an authorised representative of the petitioner attended and tendered written submissions, and no adjournment or specific request for a further hearing was made; hence the representative's conduct did not amount to denial of opportunity. The HC further held that an equivocal request for a hearing "if necessary" did not oblige the authority to seek additional clarification, and concluded there were no grounds to interfere with the administrative order.
The HC dismissed the writ petition and upheld the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 cancelling the petitioner's registration, finding no breach of natural justice. The court held that the authority had issued notice of a personal hearing, an authorised representative of the petitioner attended and tendered written submissions, and no adjournment or specific request for a further hearing was made; hence the representative's conduct did not amount to denial of opportunity. The HC further held that an equivocal request for a hearing "if necessary" did not oblige the authority to seek additional clarification, and concluded there were no grounds to interfere with the administrative order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
