Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
True owner of goods which have been seized - Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017 - While the Revenue Counsel would contend that the goods are not traceable to a bona-fide owner at the same time, in the facts of the present case, it does appear that the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 had been passed without consideration of the petitioner's claim to ownership over the goods in question. - there is evidence of the petitioner (claiming as owner) having deposited the amount of GST on 23.08.2021 which was the date fixed in the proceedings initiated under the notice dated 17.08.2021 issued under Section 129(3) of the Act. - Ex-parte order set aside - Matter restored back - HC
True owner of goods which have been seized - Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017 - While the Revenue Counsel would contend that the goods are not traceable to a bona-fide owner at the same time, in the facts of the present case, it does appear that the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 had been passed without consideration of the petitioner's claim to ownership over the goods in question. - there is evidence of the petitioner (claiming as owner) having deposited the amount of GST on 23.08.2021 which was the date fixed in the proceedings initiated under the notice dated 17.08.2021 issued under Section 129(3) of the Act. - Ex-parte order set aside - Matter restored back - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
