Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
