Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the release of seized goods upon deposit of the valuation amount. The court found that the respondent failed to provide notice of extension before the six-month seizure period expired, violating Section 67(7) of the CGST Act. The court rejected the respondent's claim of "sufficient cause" based on documents not in the public domain, which denied the petitioner opportunity to respond. The HC emphasized that delayed valuation despite the assessee's cooperation cannot constitute "sufficient cause" for extending seizure. The court clarified that confiscation under Section 130 cannot be equated with seizure powers under Section 67, and that affected parties must be shown "sufficient cause" with proper notice and hearing rights.
The HC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the release of seized goods upon deposit of the valuation amount. The court found that the respondent failed to provide notice of extension before the six-month seizure period expired, violating Section 67(7) of the CGST Act. The court rejected the respondent's claim of "sufficient cause" based on documents not in the public domain, which denied the petitioner opportunity to respond. The HC emphasized that delayed valuation despite the assessee's cooperation cannot constitute "sufficient cause" for extending seizure. The court clarified that confiscation under Section 130 cannot be equated with seizure powers under Section 67, and that affected parties must be shown "sufficient cause" with proper notice and hearing rights.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
