Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
