Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The High Court held that GST Authorities cannot launch prosecution invoking penal provisions under the Indian Penal Code without invoking penal provisions of the GST Act, when the alleged offenses are covered under the GST Act provisions. This is especially true without obtaining sanction u/s 132(6) of the GST Act. The GST Act is a special legislation comprehensively dealing with GST-related procedures, penalties, and offenses. Allowing GST Authorities to bypass the prescribed procedure under the GST Act by simply invoking IPC provisions, without invoking GST Act penal provisions, especially when allegations constitute offenses covered under the GST Act, would amount to circumventing procedural safeguards like obtaining the Commissioner's sanction before initiating prosecution u/s 132(6). Such a course of action would be an abuse of the legal process, which cannot be permitted. Consequently, the prosecution launched without following the due process under the GST Act is hit by the legal bar and warrants quashment.
The High Court held that GST Authorities cannot launch prosecution invoking penal provisions under the Indian Penal Code without invoking penal provisions of the GST Act, when the alleged offenses are covered under the GST Act provisions. This is especially true without obtaining sanction u/s 132(6) of the GST Act. The GST Act is a special legislation comprehensively dealing with GST-related procedures, penalties, and offenses. Allowing GST Authorities to bypass the prescribed procedure under the GST Act by simply invoking IPC provisions, without invoking GST Act penal provisions, especially when allegations constitute offenses covered under the GST Act, would amount to circumventing procedural safeguards like obtaining the Commissioner's sanction before initiating prosecution u/s 132(6). Such a course of action would be an abuse of the legal process, which cannot be permitted. Consequently, the prosecution launched without following the due process under the GST Act is hit by the legal bar and warrants quashment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
