Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
