Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires person-specific foundational averments showing how an accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company or entity's affairs. A complaint cannot proceed on designation alone. The Court found sufficient prima facie material against respondents 1, 2 and 4 because the complaint and documents linked them to the underlying borrowing and execution of the MoU, cheque and promissory notes, justifying continuation of prosecution. As to respondent 3, only a general assertion based on his status as Executive Member was made, with no specific factual nexus to the dishonoured cheque transaction, so quashing was upheld for him.
Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires person-specific foundational averments showing how an accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company or entity's affairs. A complaint cannot proceed on designation alone. The Court found sufficient prima facie material against respondents 1, 2 and 4 because the complaint and documents linked them to the underlying borrowing and execution of the MoU, cheque and promissory notes, justifying continuation of prosecution. As to respondent 3, only a general assertion based on his status as Executive Member was made, with no specific factual nexus to the dishonoured cheque transaction, so quashing was upheld for him.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
