Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that rectification withdrawing the claimed exemption and converting a refund into demand was procedurally invalid because no prior notice or hearing was given under the proviso to Section 154(3), and the refund was adjusted without prior intimation under Section 245, breaching natural justice. The Court therefore interfered on procedural grounds and left the merits of the exemption claim open. It also treated the matter as a high-pitched assessment case: since the assessee's appeal was pending with written submissions already on record, recovery was directed to remain stayed until final disposal of the appeal, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously by a reasoned order after hearing the assessee.
HC held that rectification withdrawing the claimed exemption and converting a refund into demand was procedurally invalid because no prior notice or hearing was given under the proviso to Section 154(3), and the refund was adjusted without prior intimation under Section 245, breaching natural justice. The Court therefore interfered on procedural grounds and left the merits of the exemption claim open. It also treated the matter as a high-pitched assessment case: since the assessee's appeal was pending with written submissions already on record, recovery was directed to remain stayed until final disposal of the appeal, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously by a reasoned order after hearing the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
