Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and the consequential order were invalid because the petitioner was not afforded the statutory time to file a reply and was not heard prior to adjudication, thereby breaching the audi alteram partem principle and the concomitant rule against bias. The court found the statutory mandate of Section 148A(b) was not complied with, rendering the proceedings procedurally vitiated. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(b) and the notice issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, and the matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with statutory timelines and with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
The HC held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and the consequential order were invalid because the petitioner was not afforded the statutory time to file a reply and was not heard prior to adjudication, thereby breaching the audi alteram partem principle and the concomitant rule against bias. The court found the statutory mandate of Section 148A(b) was not complied with, rendering the proceedings procedurally vitiated. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(b) and the notice issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, and the matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with statutory timelines and with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.