Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
