Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96257 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.