Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
