Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad HC criticizes Commercial Tax Dept for not offering personal hearings to assessees, reinforcing the importance of natural...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the significance of personal hearings under GST Section 75(4), backed by judicial precedents, ensuring fairness in assessm...
Fema / RBI : Article explains latest judgement of Indian Apex Court that the RBI's Master Directions on Fraud must adhere to the principles of ...
Corporate Law : A contractual employee is defined under Section 2(b) of The Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 which states that ...
Goods and Services Tax : HC quashed the assessment orders passed by Revenue Department, on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the a...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi High Court overturns GST order under Section 73(9) for failing to provide adequate reasons. The case is remanded for fresh c...
Goods and Services Tax : Orissa High Court rules in favor of Krishna Motors, overturning an ex parte tax assessment order. Fresh hearing ordered due to fai...
Goods and Services Tax : Gujarat HC quashes VAT order and penalty notice against Malani Construction. The court demands detailed reasoning in the fresh ord...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC remands ex-parte order and recovery proceedings in Breakbounce India Pvt Ltd case, granting a new opportunity for adj...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC sets aside GST order for Principle Mahendra Pvt Ltd due to lack of personal hearing; directs reconsideration under Se...
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.
Ashok Kumar Garg Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) According to the petitioner, although the amount of alleged bogus purchase bills has been quantified as Rs.24,10,705/- the amount in issue is only Rs.13,73,503/-. It is, thus, the petitioner’s case that Rs.10,37,202/- has been wrongly included. Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf […]
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd Vs Parag Sheth & Ors (NCLAT Delhi) It is observed that direction issued by the Adjudicating Authority are final direction allowing an application filed by the RP without issuing notice to the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the directions could not have been issued without hearing […]
Merely because petitioner failed to submit grounds of appeal as an attachment at the time of filing its memo of appeal in Form No. 35, could not be a basis for appellate authority to pass order ex-parte especially when submissions sufficiently reflected the grounds on which order of assessment was being challenged in appeal proceedings.
HC quashed the assessment orders passed by Revenue Department, on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the assessee.
Madras High Court held that there is difference of more than 1 ½ year between the date of the assessment order and date of dispatch of the assessment order. Further, order was passed without granting of personal hearing. Such impugned order is liable to be quashed.
