Faceless assessment and registration procedures are updated through electronic communication, revised recovery rules, extended deadlines, and replacem...
Risk-based selective vessel boarding requires accurate declarations and preserves master and agent liability where physical inspections are not select...
Permanent-establishment reassessment cannot revisit scrutinised disclosures; extended reopening fails without undisclosed material facts and within st...
The High Court considered a challenge to a search and seizure order under the UPGST Act. The court found non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 67 as the Joint Commissioner did not provide the necessary "reasons to believe" for the search. The State authorities' explanation of discrepancies in forms was deemed insufficient. Consequently, the authorization for the search was invalidated. All proceedings stemming from the illegal search were annulled, goods and documents seized were to be released within three weeks, and any deposited amounts were to be refunded within eight weeks.
The High Court considered a challenge to a search and seizure order under the UPGST Act. The court found non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 67 as the Joint Commissioner did not provide the necessary "reasons to believe" for the search. The State authorities' explanation of discrepancies in forms was deemed insufficient. Consequently, the authorization for the search was invalidated. All proceedings stemming from the illegal search were annulled, goods and documents seized were to be released within three weeks, and any deposited amounts were to be refunded within eight weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
