Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
