Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
