Limitation for consequential assessments runs from prescribed authority receipt, while verified purchases cannot be disallowed merely for unanswered s...
Higher depreciation for qualifying commercial vehicles, exempt-income disallowance, research deduction verification, and club-expense treatment clarif...
Charitable registration renewal cannot become an assessment of receipts, profitability or annual exemption compliance, requiring renewal and donation ...
AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Time Limitation - issuing a notice after the detention - The High Court noted that the actions of the tax authority did not align with the prescribed timeline outlined in section 129(3) of the CGST Act. As per this section, the proper officer must issue a notice within seven days of detention or seizure and pass an order within seven days from the date of service of such notice. Since both the notice and the subsequent order were issued beyond these time limits, the court found no justification to uphold the demand raised. - While acknowledging the discrepancy in the vehicle number recorded in the e-way bills, the court observed that it was a minor error, possibly a bonafide mistake. The court indicated that such discrepancies should not lead to severe penalties under section 129 of the CGST Act.
Time Limitation - issuing a notice after the detention - The High Court noted that the actions of the tax authority did not align with the prescribed timeline outlined in section 129(3) of the CGST Act. As per this section, the proper officer must issue a notice within seven days of detention or seizure and pass an order within seven days from the date of service of such notice. Since both the notice and the subsequent order were issued beyond these time limits, the court found no justification to uphold the demand raised. - While acknowledging the discrepancy in the vehicle number recorded in the e-way bills, the court observed that it was a minor error, possibly a bonafide mistake. The court indicated that such discrepancies should not lead to severe penalties under section 129 of the CGST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
