Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
