Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 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 impugned proceedings under s.73(9) were vitiated by defective communication of the show-cause notice and by the Proper Officer's failure to afford the statutory hearing mandated by s.75(4); uploading the notice only under an "additional" tab did not constitute valid service under the WBGST/CGST regime, and the petitioner was shown to have had sufficient cause for non-reply. The court declined to sustain any time-bar refusal and granted the petitioner a final opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause notice, directing fresh adjudication after affording the requisite opportunity of hearing; the petition was disposed accordingly.
The HC held that the impugned proceedings under s.73(9) were vitiated by defective communication of the show-cause notice and by the Proper Officer's failure to afford the statutory hearing mandated by s.75(4); uploading the notice only under an "additional" tab did not constitute valid service under the WBGST/CGST regime, and the petitioner was shown to have had sufficient cause for non-reply. The court declined to sustain any time-bar refusal and granted the petitioner a final opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause notice, directing fresh adjudication after affording the requisite opportunity of hearing; the petition was disposed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.