Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Validity of demand with penalty u/s 73 of CGST Act - Petitioner argued that their detailed replies were not adequately considered, and they were not given an opportunity to clarify or provide further documents. The court found merit in these contentions, criticizing the proper officer for dismissing the petitioner's reply without proper assessment and for not providing opportunities for clarification. Consequently, the High court set aside the impugned order and directed the matter to be remitted for re-adjudication, emphasizing the importance of following principles of natural justice and affording parties due process.
Validity of demand with penalty u/s 73 of CGST Act - Petitioner argued that their detailed replies were not adequately considered, and they were not given an opportunity to clarify or provide further documents. The court found merit in these contentions, criticizing the proper officer for dismissing the petitioner's reply without proper assessment and for not providing opportunities for clarification. Consequently, the High court set aside the impugned order and directed the matter to be remitted for re-adjudication, emphasizing the importance of following principles of natural justice and affording parties due process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.