Several opportunities were given to petitioner to respond to notices sent by Assessing Officer so no violation of Principles of natural justice
Madras High Court held that as per provisions of section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017 granting of personal hearing is mandatory where an adverse decision is taken by the AO against the assessee. Non-granting of the same is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order liable to be quashed.
Madras High Court held that impugned assessment order passed without granting time despite of specific request from the petitioner is liable to be quashed and remanded back as against the principles of natural justice.
Madras High Court held that as the personal hearing has not been afforded, it is clear that principles of natural justice has been violated by the respondent. Hence, the impugned assessment orders is quashed and the matters will have to be remanded back for fresh consideration.
Madras High Court held that as an appeal is already filed which is still pending and statutory pre-deposit amount paid by the petitioner, VAT authorities cannot recover further sum from petitioner’s bank account or from any other source till statutory appeal is disposed of on merits.
Madras High Court held that approaching court directly against the impugned notice without allowing department to consider the defence reply and providing opportunity of hearing is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, court directed petitioner to appear for personal hearing before respondent.
Raw enterprises Vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Madras High Court held that as per provisions of section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 departmental authorities need to take decision on provisional release application. Petitioner directed to furnish fresh application u/s 110A as against the allegation that application is not in prescribed […]
Madras High Court held that initiation of coercive recovery proceedings, by exercising power under section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, without passing of assessment order is invalid and unsustainable.
Madras High Court held that invocation of extended period of limitation unjustified as non-disclosure or claim of non-liability was on the basis of bonafide interpretation of law.
Madras High Court held that administrative side cannot seek leave to review an order passed by its own judgements on the judicial side as the same would amount to undermining the judicial fibre.
