It is well settled that a failure of natural justice in the authority of first instance cannot be cured by sufficiency of natural justice in the appellate body, else the same would encourage the tendency of the authorities to give a short shrift to the proceedings before them.
Service tax demand against famous cricketers and brothers, Irfan Pathan and Yusuf Pathan was not justified as they were not providing any service as an independent individual worker therefore, they were not liable to service tax under the Business Support Service for brand endorsement during IPL.
Chimes Aviation Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Confiscation and customs duty recovery order against Chimes Aviation Private Limited for use of aircrafts for purposes other than training was quashed as the customs authorities should have proceeded to recover the duty on the basis of the undertaking only when the competent authority […]
Gujarat High Court held that passing of reassessment order, alleging failure of submission of Form-F due to Covid lockdown, without providing an opportunity of hearing is against the principle of natural justice and hence liable to be quashed.
Supreme Court held that insertion of sub-section (6) to section 1 is effective from 20.10.1989. Hence, on and after 20.10.1989, irrespective of number of persons employed a factory or an establishment shall be governed by the ESI Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of agreement which is not even signed without any corroborative material is unsustainable in law.
High Court granted stay of recovery of interest and penalty however directed to deposit profiteered amount in instalments and also granted stay of notice expanding scope of anti-profiteering investigation
Where authority while cancelling GST registration solely relied upon statement made by receptionist of building who could not recognise appellant’s photograph, proper course was followed, therefore, matter was to be remanded to original authority for conducting fresh enquiry
Orson Holdings Company Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) 1. At the time of issuance of notice on 7.12.2018 in this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has passed the following order: “1. This petition challenges the constitutional validity of rule 138(10) of the Central […]
It is pointed out to us that action of blocking under Rule 86A(3) is for period of one year. As regards one of the suppliers, account was blocked on 21 October 2021 and other suppliers it was on 14 March 2022.
