Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
