Jurisdiction challenge to assessment orders passed by different ...

Jurisdiction challenge rejected for non-participation. 10% deposit within 8 weeks for fresh hearing. File replies in 12 weeks. Final order in 2 months.

Case Laws GST

August 6, 2024

Jurisdiction challenge to assessment orders passed by different officer from investigating officer. Petitioner negligent in non-participation in proceedings emanating from notices. Opportunity given subject to 10% disputed tax deposit within 8 weeks. Impugned quashed orders treated as addendum to notices. Petitioner to file separate replies within 12 weeks. Final orders on merits to be passed within 2 months thereafter. Petition disposed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Jurisdiction challenge to assessment orders passed by different ...

Jurisdiction challenge rejected for non-participation. 10% deposit within 8 weeks for fresh hearing. File replies in 12 weeks. Final order in 2 months.

Case Laws GST

August 6, 2024

You may also like:

The petitioners challenged the attachment of their bank account and steps taken by the respondents pursuant to an order of rectification, alleging irregular recovery...

Impugned proceedings challenged for exceeding scope of show cause notice, non-consideration of submissions during investigation and payments made, gross non-application...

Maintainability of appeal - appeal rejected as being defective for non-payment of the pre-deposit - the appeals filed by the instant petitioners u/s 107 of the CGST/BGST...

The High Court considered a challenge to an order u/s WBGST Act due to a 32-day delay in filing an appeal and non-deposit of pre-deposit. The petitioner provided...

Petitioner challenged adjudication order u/s 73 of CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 regarding discrepancies in returns, short payment of tax, and excess availment of Input Tax...

Petitioner challenged the impugned order on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, asserting unawareness of proceedings. Court observed petitioner's...

Challenge to assessment order and rectification order for assessment year 2018-19 - mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B - order challenged on grounds of...

The order dismissing the appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit amount u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged. The court relied on a...

Appeal rejected on limitation grounds but petitioners' explanation ignored; appellate authority directed to note explanation per HC precedent, condone delay, hear appeal...

CIRP process - security deposit and/or intercorporate deposit - Whether this ‘Security Deposit’ and the interest thereon would fall within the ambit of the definition of...

Challenge of jurisdiction u/s.120(4)(b) - If challenge to the jurisdiction has not been made within the prescribed time u/s.124(3) to the authority, whose jurisdiction...

The High Court held that the petitioners have the option to file writ petitions challenging the orders of the Revisionary Authority either before the High Court within...

The appeal challenges the revocation of customs broker license, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty imposed for alleged violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n)...

Assessee's claim for exemption u/s 10(35) was rejected by CPC while processing return u/s 143(1)(a), which attained finality as assessee failed to challenge it before...

Customs Broker license revocation, security deposit forfeiture, and penalty imposition under Regulations 10(a), (d), (e), and (n) of CBLR challenged. Regulation 10(a)...

Quick Updates: