Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
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...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1181 to 1200 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the respondent's invocation of jurisdiction under s.161 of the GST enactments confirming tax, interest and penalty violated the principles of natural justice because the petitioner was not heard in person prior to the impugned order dated 23.08.2024, notwithstanding a written reply filed on 16.08.2024. The court nevertheless found that the petitioner had protracted litigation by invoking s.161 beyond its narrow remit to correct apparent errors on the face of the record. The petition was disposed of on condition that the petitioner deposit 100% of the disputed tax amounting to Rs. 11,33,488 within 30 days of receipt of the order.
The HC held that the respondent's invocation of jurisdiction under s.161 of the GST enactments confirming tax, interest and penalty violated the principles of natural justice because the petitioner was not heard in person prior to the impugned order dated 23.08.2024, notwithstanding a written reply filed on 16.08.2024. The court nevertheless found that the petitioner had protracted litigation by invoking s.161 beyond its narrow remit to correct apparent errors on the face of the record. The petition was disposed of on condition that the petitioner deposit 100% of the disputed tax amounting to Rs. 11,33,488 within 30 days of receipt of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
