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...
The HC held that the detention of petitioner's goods was unjustified as authorities failed to prove intent to evade tax payment, a mandatory requirement u/s 129(3) of the GST Act. The authorities seized the goods alleging they were mustard oil instead of R.B. Oil mentioned in documents, but did not draw samples or obtain expert reports to substantiate their claim. Without expert evidence contradicting the petitioner's documents, the authorities' view cannot be sustained. The HC concluded the proceedings initiated u/s 129(3) were vitiated due to lack of finding on intent to evade tax payment. The petition was allowed.
The HC held that the detention of petitioner's goods was unjustified as authorities failed to prove intent to evade tax payment, a mandatory requirement u/s 129(3) of the GST Act. The authorities seized the goods alleging they were mustard oil instead of R.B. Oil mentioned in documents, but did not draw samples or obtain expert reports to substantiate their claim. Without expert evidence contradicting the petitioner's documents, the authorities' view cannot be sustained. The HC concluded the proceedings initiated u/s 129(3) were vitiated due to lack of finding on intent to evade tax payment. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
