Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Petitioner challenged the provisional attachment of his bank account u/s 83 of the CGST Act by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the Court found contradictions in the petitioner's statements regarding his permanent address and business location. Combined with the respondents' assertions of the petitioner being non-genuine, the Court concluded that the petitioner was committing fraud on both the Revenue and the Court. Consequently, the Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
Petitioner challenged the provisional attachment of his bank account u/s 83 of the CGST Act by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the Court found contradictions in the petitioner's statements regarding his permanent address and business location. Combined with the respondents' assertions of the petitioner being non-genuine, the Court concluded that the petitioner was committing fraud on both the Revenue and the Court. Consequently, the Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
