Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - tax paid on more than one occasion, and claims its refund u/s 154 - The High Court referred to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which states that taxes cannot be levied or collected except by authority of law. They analyzed previous court judgments and concluded that both errors of fact and errors of law can constitute 'error apparent on the face of record'. The key criterion is that the error should be clear, obvious, and not require elaborate arguments to establish. Since this error was apparent from the records, the Court concluded that it fell within the scope of Section 154.
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - tax paid on more than one occasion, and claims its refund u/s 154 - The High Court referred to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which states that taxes cannot be levied or collected except by authority of law. They analyzed previous court judgments and concluded that both errors of fact and errors of law can constitute 'error apparent on the face of record'. The key criterion is that the error should be clear, obvious, and not require elaborate arguments to establish. Since this error was apparent from the records, the Court concluded that it fell within the scope of Section 154.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.