Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Claim of second sale exemption and the imposition of penalty u/s 12(5)(iii). The High Court held that when the burden was on the dealer to prove the factum of second sale, the respondent had failed to discharge this burden by proving the actual first sale, which was a prerequisite for claiming the exemption. The Tribunal had erroneously shifted the burden from the dealer to the revenue. Relying on previous decisions, the High Court reiterated that the burden of proving an earlier taxable sale was on the assessee. Regarding the penalty u/s 12(5)(iii), the Court held that since the respondent had wilfully suppressed taxable turnover and failed to file returns, the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing the penalty, and the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was untenable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the assessment order confirmed by the appellate authority.
Claim of second sale exemption and the imposition of penalty u/s 12(5)(iii). The High Court held that when the burden was on the dealer to prove the factum of second sale, the respondent had failed to discharge this burden by proving the actual first sale, which was a prerequisite for claiming the exemption. The Tribunal had erroneously shifted the burden from the dealer to the revenue. Relying on previous decisions, the High Court reiterated that the burden of proving an earlier taxable sale was on the assessee. Regarding the penalty u/s 12(5)(iii), the Court held that since the respondent had wilfully suppressed taxable turnover and failed to file returns, the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing the penalty, and the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was untenable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the assessment order confirmed by the appellate authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
