Works contract classification governs composite layout-development contracts where VAT-paid goods are transferred alongside construction and infrastru...
Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Penalty liability of firm partners for fraudulent input tax credit was upheld where the adjudicating authority linked them, through their own statements, WhatsApp chats and other electronic material, to fake invoices, fake e-way bills and hawala routing of funds. The High Court held that the order was a reasoned adjudication and that the findings showed the firm's affairs were carried on with the petitioners' knowledge and consent, bringing them within the liability contemplated under Section 122(1A). The challenge based on breach of natural justice failed, Kranti Associates was held inapplicable, and no case for interference under Article 226 was made out. The writ petition was rejected.
Penalty liability of firm partners for fraudulent input tax credit was upheld where the adjudicating authority linked them, through their own statements, WhatsApp chats and other electronic material, to fake invoices, fake e-way bills and hawala routing of funds. The High Court held that the order was a reasoned adjudication and that the findings showed the firm's affairs were carried on with the petitioners' knowledge and consent, bringing them within the liability contemplated under Section 122(1A). The challenge based on breach of natural justice failed, Kranti Associates was held inapplicable, and no case for interference under Article 226 was made out. The writ petition was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
