Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The High Court considered the validity of a garnishee order due to a mismatch between the supplier's GSTR 1 statement and the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns. The court found that the petitioner was not given a chance to be heard before the order was issued. As the tax demand was already met from the petitioner's bank account, the revenue interest was secured. The court held that the petitioner should be allowed to contest the tax demand and quashed the impugned order dated 15.09.2023. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, and the petition was disposed of by way of remand.
The High Court considered the validity of a garnishee order due to a mismatch between the supplier's GSTR 1 statement and the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns. The court found that the petitioner was not given a chance to be heard before the order was issued. As the tax demand was already met from the petitioner's bank account, the revenue interest was secured. The court held that the petitioner should be allowed to contest the tax demand and quashed the impugned order dated 15.09.2023. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, and the petition was disposed of by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
