Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
