Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
The High Court addressed the validity of a seizure order u/s 67(2) of the CGST Act, focusing on whether the term "things" includes cash/currency seized during search and seizure. The Court considered conflicting interpretations from different High Courts. It held that cash/currency is not encompassed within the term "things" in the provision. The Court emphasized that the purpose of u/s 67(2) is not to recover tax through asset seizure. The Court found the seizure order invalid as the authority lacked "reasons to believe" prior to the seizure, as required by the Act. The Court also noted the delay in completing proceedings post-seizure, directing the revenue authority to return the seized cash with interest. The impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
The High Court addressed the validity of a seizure order u/s 67(2) of the CGST Act, focusing on whether the term "things" includes cash/currency seized during search and seizure. The Court considered conflicting interpretations from different High Courts. It held that cash/currency is not encompassed within the term "things" in the provision. The Court emphasized that the purpose of u/s 67(2) is not to recover tax through asset seizure. The Court found the seizure order invalid as the authority lacked "reasons to believe" prior to the seizure, as required by the Act. The Court also noted the delay in completing proceedings post-seizure, directing the revenue authority to return the seized cash with interest. The impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
