Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Release of the Amount Seized along with interest u/s 132B(4) read with Rule 119A - Scope of the term 'shall release' - The High court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest if the assessing authority, upon examination, finds that the seized amount was duly explained and not required for satisfying any existing or likely tax demand. - The court interpreted the statutory provisions as directory, not mandatory, stating that the assessing authority's failure to decide within 120 days does not automatically entitle the petitioner to the release of the seized amount. - The writ petition was disposed of without granting the writ of Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner. Instead, the court directed the Assessing Authority to decide on the petitioner's application within two weeks, ensuring a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioner.
Release of the Amount Seized along with interest u/s 132B(4) read with Rule 119A - Scope of the term 'shall release' - The High court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest if the assessing authority, upon examination, finds that the seized amount was duly explained and not required for satisfying any existing or likely tax demand. - The court interpreted the statutory provisions as directory, not mandatory, stating that the assessing authority's failure to decide within 120 days does not automatically entitle the petitioner to the release of the seized amount. - The writ petition was disposed of without granting the writ of Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner. Instead, the court directed the Assessing Authority to decide on the petitioner's application within two weeks, ensuring a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
