Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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.