Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Reassessment notice law distinguishes issuance from service: limitation under Section 149 was satisfied because the notice under Section 148 was issued within time, so the reopening was not void for want of jurisdiction. However, the Department failed to prove actual service of the statutory notice before reassessment was completed. The Court treated this as an irregular assumption of jurisdiction amounting to breach of natural justice, set aside the reassessment order and consequential demand, and remitted the matter for fresh assessment after service of notice and opportunity of hearing. It also held that writ jurisdiction was available despite an alternate remedy because the challenge involved violation of natural justice.
Reassessment notice law distinguishes issuance from service: limitation under Section 149 was satisfied because the notice under Section 148 was issued within time, so the reopening was not void for want of jurisdiction. However, the Department failed to prove actual service of the statutory notice before reassessment was completed. The Court treated this as an irregular assumption of jurisdiction amounting to breach of natural justice, set aside the reassessment order and consequential demand, and remitted the matter for fresh assessment after service of notice and opportunity of hearing. It also held that writ jurisdiction was available despite an alternate remedy because the challenge involved violation of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.