Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Writ jurisdiction was not entertained to challenge GST proceedings after the statutory appeal period had expired, because the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice and been heard, so jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice were not established. The High Court held that Article 226 cannot be used to bypass a special appellate scheme with a limited condonable period, especially in tax matters where diligence is required. In the absence of a proper explanation for delay or any patent illegality, the petition was dismissed, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law and without affecting any future appeal.
Writ jurisdiction was not entertained to challenge GST proceedings after the statutory appeal period had expired, because the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice and been heard, so jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice were not established. The High Court held that Article 226 cannot be used to bypass a special appellate scheme with a limited condonable period, especially in tax matters where diligence is required. In the absence of a proper explanation for delay or any patent illegality, the petition was dismissed, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law and without affecting any future appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
