Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 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 quashed the seizure order and allowed the petition, holding that once the E-way bill was produced before the seizure order could be passed, it could not be said that any contravention of the Act's provisions had occurred. The court observed that although the goods were initially detained due to the absence of an E-way bill, the petitioner subsequently produced the E-way bill before the seizure order was issued. The authorities had the power to survey the petitioner's business premises to verify the transaction's correctness but chose not to exercise it. The court distinguished the case from the precedent cited, where goods were seized due to a complete lack of accompanying documents.
The High Court quashed the seizure order and allowed the petition, holding that once the E-way bill was produced before the seizure order could be passed, it could not be said that any contravention of the Act's provisions had occurred. The court observed that although the goods were initially detained due to the absence of an E-way bill, the petitioner subsequently produced the E-way bill before the seizure order was issued. The authorities had the power to survey the petitioner's business premises to verify the transaction's correctness but chose not to exercise it. The court distinguished the case from the precedent cited, where goods were seized due to a complete lack of accompanying documents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
