Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
The Tribunal addressed (1) overlap of jurisdiction and principle of comity: finding the earlier Commissioner's order was non-original, lacked application of mind and risked "poaching" on concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal held such order excluded further support and set it aside - outcome: Commissioner's order quashed. (2) Eligibility for refund under rule 5, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: the Tribunal found rejection rested on absence of a prescribed mechanism to ascertain prospective use and that no show-cause specifying deficiencies was issued, depriving the applicant of opportunity to be heard - outcome: applications restored to the original authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and procedure; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
The Tribunal addressed (1) overlap of jurisdiction and principle of comity: finding the earlier Commissioner's order was non-original, lacked application of mind and risked "poaching" on concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal held such order excluded further support and set it aside - outcome: Commissioner's order quashed. (2) Eligibility for refund under rule 5, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: the Tribunal found rejection rested on absence of a prescribed mechanism to ascertain prospective use and that no show-cause specifying deficiencies was issued, depriving the applicant of opportunity to be heard - outcome: applications restored to the original authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and procedure; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
