Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
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...
Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable against provisional attachment because the challenge went to the very legality of invoking the exceptional power of immediate attachment, and the statutory remedy under adjudication was not an efficacious forum to test compliance with the preconditions. The Court held that where the second proviso to Section 5(1) is invoked, the competent officer must record objective reasons, based on material in possession, showing that non-attachment would likely frustrate proceedings. As the order relied mainly on alleged laundering material and did not disclose a legally sufficient nexus to urgency or possible frustration, the attachment was vitiated. The provisional attachment and consequential proceedings were set aside, with liberty to commence fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable against provisional attachment because the challenge went to the very legality of invoking the exceptional power of immediate attachment, and the statutory remedy under adjudication was not an efficacious forum to test compliance with the preconditions. The Court held that where the second proviso to Section 5(1) is invoked, the competent officer must record objective reasons, based on material in possession, showing that non-attachment would likely frustrate proceedings. As the order relied mainly on alleged laundering material and did not disclose a legally sufficient nexus to urgency or possible frustration, the attachment was vitiated. The provisional attachment and consequential proceedings were set aside, with liberty to commence fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
