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...
Absence of a Document Identification Number in GST assessment orders was treated as an inherent defect that invalidated the orders, following prior High Court rulings. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing. On the delay objection, the Court noted the controversy over service through the GST portal and the practical difficulties in accessing portal-served orders, and held that a delayed writ could still be entertained where the orders disclosed a patent irregularity. Relief was granted subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax, with issues on merits left open.
Absence of a Document Identification Number in GST assessment orders was treated as an inherent defect that invalidated the orders, following prior High Court rulings. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing. On the delay objection, the Court noted the controversy over service through the GST portal and the practical difficulties in accessing portal-served orders, and held that a delayed writ could still be entertained where the orders disclosed a patent irregularity. Relief was granted subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax, with issues on merits left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.