Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 
