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 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
