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 quashed cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and allowed the petition, holding the impugned quasi-judicial order unlawful for failure to disclose the adjudicating officer, failure to afford adequate notice and personal hearing, and consequent violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner's Article 19(1)(g) liberty to carry on business. The Court found the adjudicatory order bereft of application of mind and thus arbitrary, failing the Article 14 test. Because the petitioner only learned of the cancellation belatedly and was not afforded any opportunity to be heard, the prior dismissal on limitation grounds could not sustain the cancellation; the impugned orders are set aside.
The HC quashed cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and allowed the petition, holding the impugned quasi-judicial order unlawful for failure to disclose the adjudicating officer, failure to afford adequate notice and personal hearing, and consequent violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner's Article 19(1)(g) liberty to carry on business. The Court found the adjudicatory order bereft of application of mind and thus arbitrary, failing the Article 14 test. Because the petitioner only learned of the cancellation belatedly and was not afforded any opportunity to be heard, the prior dismissal on limitation grounds could not sustain the cancellation; the impugned orders are set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
