Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
