Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The High Court considered the liability of the petitioner u/s 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax / Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was found that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court held that the order for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 should be set aside, and the petitioner must be given a hearing as per Section 75 (4) of the KGST Act. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The High Court considered the liability of the petitioner u/s 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax / Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was found that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court held that the order for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 should be set aside, and the petitioner must be given a hearing as per Section 75 (4) of the KGST Act. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
