Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Petitioner challenged recovery of differential Central Excise Duty by enhancing assessable value for bought-out items directly supplied to customers. Respondents failed to adjudicate show cause notice for six years, citing implementation of GST as reason. Court held justification unacceptable as Petitioner attended proceedings post-GST introduction. Respondents provided no evidence of department's non-functioning during GST implementation. Relegating Petitioner to attend delayed show cause notice would be unfair, unreasonable, and abuse of power. High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226, disposing of the petition.
Petitioner challenged recovery of differential Central Excise Duty by enhancing assessable value for bought-out items directly supplied to customers. Respondents failed to adjudicate show cause notice for six years, citing implementation of GST as reason. Court held justification unacceptable as Petitioner attended proceedings post-GST introduction. Respondents provided no evidence of department's non-functioning during GST implementation. Relegating Petitioner to attend delayed show cause notice would be unfair, unreasonable, and abuse of power. High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226, disposing of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
