Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
An assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B was set aside because the assessee's reply was not considered and the position on the adjournment request was not clearly communicated. The Court held that, where an adjournment is sought, the Assessing Officer must communicate whether it is granted and, if so, the next date of hearing through the prescribed mode. Since the assessee filed a reply within the time stated and the impugned order made no reference to that reply or the accompanying submissions, the order breached the right of hearing and violated principles of natural justice. The assessment and demand notice were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh assessment after due hearing.
An assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B was set aside because the assessee's reply was not considered and the position on the adjournment request was not clearly communicated. The Court held that, where an adjournment is sought, the Assessing Officer must communicate whether it is granted and, if so, the next date of hearing through the prescribed mode. Since the assessee filed a reply within the time stated and the impugned order made no reference to that reply or the accompanying submissions, the order breached the right of hearing and violated principles of natural justice. The assessment and demand notice were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh assessment after due hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.