Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The HC examined whether proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 were time-barred. Proceedings commenced on 02.03.2023 via show cause notice with final order passed on 06.12.2023. The Court determined that even with the extension of time limit, such an order could only have been passed until 31.12.2023. Since these facts were undisputed and clearly evident from the impugned order and records, the Court concluded that the proceedings culminating in the impugned order were time-barred. The Court found no reason to call for a counter affidavit and allowed the petition, effectively invalidating the proceedings due to their time-barred nature.
The HC examined whether proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 were time-barred. Proceedings commenced on 02.03.2023 via show cause notice with final order passed on 06.12.2023. The Court determined that even with the extension of time limit, such an order could only have been passed until 31.12.2023. Since these facts were undisputed and clearly evident from the impugned order and records, the Court concluded that the proceedings culminating in the impugned order were time-barred. The Court found no reason to call for a counter affidavit and allowed the petition, effectively invalidating the proceedings due to their time-barred nature.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
