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 quashed the Audit Assessment Order dated 21.03.2025 and the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued in Form VAT-306 as void for want of jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court held the AVR was invalid because Section 41(4)'s mandatory time-limit was not complied with; consequently the Assessing Authority could not lawfully invoke Section 42 after having earlier proceeded under Section 43. Section 49(2) cannot be used to cure an intra-statutory jurisdictional error where the authority erroneously chose Section 43 over Section 42. All proceedings and consequential acts founded on the invalid AVR and the delayed Form VAT-306 notice therefore collapsed and the petition was allowed.
The HC quashed the Audit Assessment Order dated 21.03.2025 and the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued in Form VAT-306 as void for want of jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court held the AVR was invalid because Section 41(4)'s mandatory time-limit was not complied with; consequently the Assessing Authority could not lawfully invoke Section 42 after having earlier proceeded under Section 43. Section 49(2) cannot be used to cure an intra-statutory jurisdictional error where the authority erroneously chose Section 43 over Section 42. All proceedings and consequential acts founded on the invalid AVR and the delayed Form VAT-306 notice therefore collapsed and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
