Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
A High Court held that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the Act, 2017 cannot be initiated merely for an alleged violation of Section 35 without prior determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. Because the show cause notice was issued without satisfying that jurisdictional requirement, it was held to be without jurisdiction. Interference at the notice stage was therefore justified, and the show cause notice and consequential confiscation order were quashed, with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
A High Court held that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the Act, 2017 cannot be initiated merely for an alleged violation of Section 35 without prior determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. Because the show cause notice was issued without satisfying that jurisdictional requirement, it was held to be without jurisdiction. Interference at the notice stage was therefore justified, and the show cause notice and consequential confiscation order were quashed, with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.