Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Section 74 GST action was upheld because the show cause notice and assessment were based on a prima facie discrepancy between the seigniorage fee-linked quantity/value and the lower value disclosed in returns, amounting to alleged suppression of outward supply. The HC held that this was sufficient foundational material for invoking the extended period of limitation, and rejected the challenge that there was no basis for Section 74 proceedings. The natural justice objection also failed because intimation notices and show cause notices had been issued and replies were filed, leaving no procedural defect warranting writ interference. The writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Section 74 GST action was upheld because the show cause notice and assessment were based on a prima facie discrepancy between the seigniorage fee-linked quantity/value and the lower value disclosed in returns, amounting to alleged suppression of outward supply. The HC held that this was sufficient foundational material for invoking the extended period of limitation, and rejected the challenge that there was no basis for Section 74 proceedings. The natural justice objection also failed because intimation notices and show cause notices had been issued and replies were filed, leaving no procedural defect warranting writ interference. The writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
