It observed that since the assessment order was already available on the department website, the petitioner had referenced it while filing the appeal electronically. Therefore, the Court concluded that the requirement was substantially met, and the date of filing should have been considered as 26.09.2022.
Ensuring timely insolvency resolution, IBC mandates strict timelines; a liberal approach would undermine its objectives. Korah John Vs JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (NCLAT Chennai)
In the State Bank of India vs. Supreme Panvel Indapur Tollways Pvt. Ltd. case, NCLAT Delhi grants time for rejoinder with a cost of Rs. 25,000, dismissing other directives.
CESTAT Mumbai: Saf Yesat Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – penalties deemed jurisdictionally void for issuing second SCN without adjudicating first.
Detailed analysis of Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd vs ITO case where Delhi HC ruled that without a Section 127 transfer order, AO cannot proceed with assessment.
Read the full text of the Madras High Court judgment setting aside GST demand orders in Tvl. Sri Nallamal Steels vs Assistant Commissioner (ST). Adjournment request disregarded, no reasonable hearing opportunity provided.
Madras High Court remands assessment and penalty orders due to lack of participation, granting the petitioner a chance to respond to the show cause notice.
ITAT Hyderabad grants partial relief to agriculturist in cash deposit case during demonetization, citing agricultural income sources. Addition reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs.
Madras High Court orders remand in GST discrepancy case, mandating 10% pre-deposit by petitioner for reconsideration of tax demand.
Sec. 144B mandates AO to offer a hearing post show-cause notice. If requested, personal hearing is obligatory, not discretionary, in assessment.
