Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
Pre-commencement R&D deduction denied where business had not commenced; deeming benefit requires tangible start of manufacture or commercial exploitat...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5541 to 5560 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
High Court held that a mandatory three-month gap between issuance of a CGST show cause notice and passing of the adjudication order is required to secure principles of natural justice and the right to personal hearing; shortening that interval undermines service of the statement of demand, the assessee's self-assessment option and ability to obtain adjournments, and therefore renders orders passed within a shorter period unsustainable. Applying that principle, the court quashed and set aside the show cause notice issued on 15-5-2024 and the adjudication order dated 9-7-2024 as the gap was under three months.
High Court held that a mandatory three-month gap between issuance of a CGST show cause notice and passing of the adjudication order is required to secure principles of natural justice and the right to personal hearing; shortening that interval undermines service of the statement of demand, the assessee's self-assessment option and ability to obtain adjournments, and therefore renders orders passed within a shorter period unsustainable. Applying that principle, the court quashed and set aside the show cause notice issued on 15-5-2024 and the adjudication order dated 9-7-2024 as the gap was under three months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.