Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
HC held that the impugned order dated 6 February 2025 was vitiated by breach of the statutory rules of natural justice, insofar as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity for personal oral hearing after service of a show-cause notice and filing of a written reply; under Section 75 the rights to submit a written reply and to an oral hearing are distinct and independently enforceable. The HC set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition by way of remand, directing respondent No.2 to revisit the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with the mandatory procedural requirements, thereby restoring the petitioner's entitlement to a fair hearing.
HC held that the impugned order dated 6 February 2025 was vitiated by breach of the statutory rules of natural justice, insofar as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity for personal oral hearing after service of a show-cause notice and filing of a written reply; under Section 75 the rights to submit a written reply and to an oral hearing are distinct and independently enforceable. The HC set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition by way of remand, directing respondent No.2 to revisit the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with the mandatory procedural requirements, thereby restoring the petitioner's entitlement to a fair hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.