Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Section 125 of the CGST framework was construed as prescribing a single maximum general penalty of Rs. 25,000, so the penalty could not be split into separate CGST and SGST penalties to exceed that statutory cap. The High Court therefore held that imposing Rs. 25,000 under CGST and a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST under the same provision was unjustified. The penalty order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with all available grounds left open to the petitioner.
Section 125 of the CGST framework was construed as prescribing a single maximum general penalty of Rs. 25,000, so the penalty could not be split into separate CGST and SGST penalties to exceed that statutory cap. The High Court therefore held that imposing Rs. 25,000 under CGST and a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST under the same provision was unjustified. The penalty order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with all available grounds left open to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
