Follow:
- Next story CAA petition in SC: Kerala Governor seeks report from LDF govt: super சட்ட சிக்கல்
- Previous story Mhc advt swapna mam winner photos in chennai function
Recent Posts
- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 279, 338 (8 counts), 337 (36 counts) of IPC and hence acquitted under
- The Madras High Court recently directed a taxpayer to file a revocation application to reinstate their GST registration, which was cancelled due to alleged suspicious transactions in their bank and portal. Here’s a breakdown of the case¹: – *Background*: The taxpayer’s GST registration was cancelled, prompting them to approach the Madras High Court. – *Court’s Directive*: The court directed the taxpayer to file a revocation application along with supporting documentation. – *Procedure*: The department will issue a notice for a personal hearing within three days of receiving the application. A reasoned order will be passed within two weeks after the hearing, ensuring the taxpayer is given an opportunity to present their case. – *Precedent*: This decision aligns with previous judgments where the Madras High Court has allowed taxpayers to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration under certain circumstances, such as when the taxpayer has a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application.² *Key Takeaways* – *Revocation Application*: Taxpayers can apply for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the GST Act. – *Supporting Documentation*: The taxpayer must provide supporting documentation to substantiate their claim. – *Opportunity for Hearing*: The department must provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing a reasoned order. – *Timeframe*: The department is required to pass a reasoned order within two weeks after the hearing. It’s essential for taxpayers to understand the procedures and timelines for revocation of cancellation of registration to ensure compliance with GST regulations.
- [12/05, 07:57] Meta AI: Justice Krishnan Ramasamy’s decision involves a case where the petitioner’s explanation was deemed reasonable and sincere, particularly due to their reliance on expert advice. The key points of the judgment are¹: – *Reasonable Explanation*: The petitioner provided a valid explanation that was accepted by the court. – *Reliance on Expert Advice*: The petitioner’s actions were guided by expert advice, which contributed to the court’s favorable view. – *Cancellation of Cancellation Order*: As a result, the court canceled the cancellation order, effectively reversing a previous decision. Without more context about the case, it’s difficult to provide further details. However, this decision suggests that the court valued the petitioner’s transparency and good faith in following expert advice. [12/05, 07:57] sekarreporter1: Case number and order copy
- Meta AI: This appears to be a legal update where: – *Lordship Justice Nakkiran*: Made a decision regarding a review application. – *Division Bench’s Observations*: The judge referenced observations made by a division bench (a panel of two or more judges) in reaching the conclusion.
- Meta AI: This appears to be a court case where: – *Contempt Petition*: A petition was filed against the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu. – *Fine Imposed*: A fine of ₹5 lakhs was imposed. – *Judges*: The case was heard by MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE. – *Petitioner*: Elephant G. Rajendran, an advocate, filed the contempt petition
More
Recent Posts
- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 279, 338 (8 counts), 337 (36 counts) of IPC and hence acquitted under
- The Madras High Court recently directed a taxpayer to file a revocation application to reinstate their GST registration, which was cancelled due to alleged suspicious transactions in their bank and portal. Here’s a breakdown of the case¹: – *Background*: The taxpayer’s GST registration was cancelled, prompting them to approach the Madras High Court. – *Court’s Directive*: The court directed the taxpayer to file a revocation application along with supporting documentation. – *Procedure*: The department will issue a notice for a personal hearing within three days of receiving the application. A reasoned order will be passed within two weeks after the hearing, ensuring the taxpayer is given an opportunity to present their case. – *Precedent*: This decision aligns with previous judgments where the Madras High Court has allowed taxpayers to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration under certain circumstances, such as when the taxpayer has a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application.² *Key Takeaways* – *Revocation Application*: Taxpayers can apply for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the GST Act. – *Supporting Documentation*: The taxpayer must provide supporting documentation to substantiate their claim. – *Opportunity for Hearing*: The department must provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing a reasoned order. – *Timeframe*: The department is required to pass a reasoned order within two weeks after the hearing. It’s essential for taxpayers to understand the procedures and timelines for revocation of cancellation of registration to ensure compliance with GST regulations.
- [12/05, 07:57] Meta AI: Justice Krishnan Ramasamy’s decision involves a case where the petitioner’s explanation was deemed reasonable and sincere, particularly due to their reliance on expert advice. The key points of the judgment are¹: – *Reasonable Explanation*: The petitioner provided a valid explanation that was accepted by the court. – *Reliance on Expert Advice*: The petitioner’s actions were guided by expert advice, which contributed to the court’s favorable view. – *Cancellation of Cancellation Order*: As a result, the court canceled the cancellation order, effectively reversing a previous decision. Without more context about the case, it’s difficult to provide further details. However, this decision suggests that the court valued the petitioner’s transparency and good faith in following expert advice. [12/05, 07:57] sekarreporter1: Case number and order copy
- Meta AI: This appears to be a legal update where: – *Lordship Justice Nakkiran*: Made a decision regarding a review application. – *Division Bench’s Observations*: The judge referenced observations made by a division bench (a panel of two or more judges) in reaching the conclusion.
- Meta AI: This appears to be a court case where: – *Contempt Petition*: A petition was filed against the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu. – *Fine Imposed*: A fine of ₹5 lakhs was imposed. – *Judges*: The case was heard by MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE. – *Petitioner*: Elephant G. Rajendran, an advocate, filed the contempt petition
