Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
In an economic-offence investigation, the HC treated a seven-day prior notice requirement before coercive action as a limited safeguard, not anticipatory bail or blanket protection from arrest. Because the matter was still at the summons stage and no proposal for prior approval to arrest had been moved, the Court held that investigation could continue and the respondents had to join as called. The Department remained free to proceed in accordance with law if they did not cooperate. The challenge to the notice direction failed and the petitions were dismissed.
In an economic-offence investigation, the HC treated a seven-day prior notice requirement before coercive action as a limited safeguard, not anticipatory bail or blanket protection from arrest. Because the matter was still at the summons stage and no proposal for prior approval to arrest had been moved, the Court held that investigation could continue and the respondents had to join as called. The Department remained free to proceed in accordance with law if they did not cooperate. The challenge to the notice direction failed and the petitions were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.