HC determined that the undated demand order was procedurally ...

Judicial Review Finds Demand Order Defective, Mandates Procedural Correction and Fair Hearing for Petitioner Under Section 75(6)

April 11, 2025

Case Laws GST HC

HC determined that the undated demand order was procedurally defective under Section 75(6), lacking substantive reasoning beyond referencing a show cause notice. The court remanded the matter to the respondent, directing them to provide the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the original show cause notice within four weeks. Following the petitioner's response, the respondent must conduct a hearing and issue a legally compliant order. The petition was allowed through judicial remand, requiring procedural rectification of the original administrative action.

View Source

← Previous Next →

HC determined that the undated demand order was procedurally ...

Judicial Review Finds Demand Order Defective, Mandates Procedural Correction and Fair Hearing for Petitioner Under Section 75(6)

April 11, 2025

Case Laws GST HC

You may also like:

Scope of Judicial Review – Review of the decision of the Settlement Commission - There is limited scope of judicial review - Despite such narrow confines of judicial...

HC allowed the petition, finding a violation of natural justice due to lack of proper application of mind by the respondent authority under Section 74 of the Central...

Addition u/s 56(2)(viia) - purchase of shares at price more than its fair market value - The tribunal extensively reviewed the submissions and evidence presented,...

The primary contention revolves around the approval process of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the subsequent judicial scrutiny by the NCLT...

SC upheld constitutional validity of arrest powers under Customs Act and GST Acts while establishing key procedural safeguards. Person arrested has right to meet...

HC found procedural deficiencies in handling refund claims where foreign currency receipts lacked proper documentation through e-BRC filings. Despite timing...

The case before the Allahabad High Court involved the jurisdiction of the Collector (Stamp) to recall or review an order under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act,...

Rectification application u/s 254 - Tribunal not followed the decision on the identical facts by the Coordinate Bench which is confirmed by this Court - The Court...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed several key issues. Firstly, on Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment, it found errors in the CIT(A)'s decision as rectification was only...

The specific power granted for review to an Appellate Tribunal does not even include correction of errors apparent on the face of the record. - review is allowed only on...

The AT dismissed the review applications filed for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties under FERA. The appellants' failure to comply with the deposit order justified the...

The review petition challenges the order imposing interest liability over the withheld amount and cost on the Managing Director. The court held that reviewing an order...

A review application is maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, (ii) mistake or error...

Seeking review - error apparent on the face of record or not - The High Court held that, these documents were not part of the pleadings. Review does not mean rehearing...

Composition of Adjudicating Authority under PMLA and its Jurisdiction - Whether the quasi judicial bodies should consist of members having requisite qualification in the...

Quick Updates: