The Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction concerning the issuance of GST notices and proceedings related to a highway project under the BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) model. It upheld the jurisdiction of the tax authorities, dismissed the writ petition, and granted assessee liberty to file an appeal within four weeks, ensuring that the matter could be examined on its merits by the appellate authorities.
The issue involved an ex-parte GST order demanding ITC reversal without proper notice. The Court held that absence of opportunity to respond violated principles of natural justice. The key takeaway is that hearing is mandatory before passing adverse orders.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s non-appearance before the appellate authority was linked to serious ailments. It directed filing of an appeal before the Tribunal within six weeks.
The Meghalaya High Court directs an assessee to file a revised income tax return to finalize the closure of her Capital Gain Deposit Scheme (CGDS) account.
Meghalaya High Court directs tax authorities to accept a manually filed revised IT return from Shyam Century Ferrous Ltd. for a mistake, citing a Delhi HC precedent.
Meghalaya High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable due to availability of alternate efficacious remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Also held that writ is not maintainable as there is no breach of principles of natural justice.
Meghalaya High Court didn’t entertained petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for demand raised by EPF authorities for payment of damages and dues, due to availability of alternative statutory remedy.
Read the detailed judgment of Meghalaya High Court in PCIT vs North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited. Analysis of income tax appeal and its implications.
Meghalaya High Court directs Customs to refund Rs. 60 lakhs for destroying seized betel nuts. Learn about the court’s decision and the legal proceedings involved.
Meghalaya High Court ruling states pre-takeover electricity dues cannot be recovered from present owner under IBC. Detailed analysis of the judgment provided.
