Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
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 4916 
