Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC determined the initial cash seizure by state GST officers was unlawful, lacking statutory authority under CGST/SGST Act. The subsequent transfer of seized funds to Income Tax Department under Section 132A of IT Act could not legitimize the original illegal seizure. The court emphasized constitutional principles under Articles 265 and 300A protecting against unauthorized property expropriation and taxation. Neither GST Department nor Income Tax Department could retain the seized cash prior to completing their respective proceedings. The ruling reinforces fundamental constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state action in tax enforcement matters. Appeal resolved with direction to release seized funds pending completion of formal proceedings.
HC determined the initial cash seizure by state GST officers was unlawful, lacking statutory authority under CGST/SGST Act. The subsequent transfer of seized funds to Income Tax Department under Section 132A of IT Act could not legitimize the original illegal seizure. The court emphasized constitutional principles under Articles 265 and 300A protecting against unauthorized property expropriation and taxation. Neither GST Department nor Income Tax Department could retain the seized cash prior to completing their respective proceedings. The ruling reinforces fundamental constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state action in tax enforcement matters. Appeal resolved with direction to release seized funds pending completion of formal proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
