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. The proceedings commenced on 20.09.2023 via show cause notice with a final order issued on 15.12.2023. Applying the precedent established in M/s A.V. Pharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., the Court determined that such orders could only be passed until 31.12.2023, even with time extensions. Since the proceedings were completed within this timeframe (15.12.2023), they were not time-barred. However, the Court ultimately quashed the impugned orders and proceedings, allowing the petition on other undisclosed grounds.
The HC examined whether proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 were time-barred. The proceedings commenced on 20.09.2023 via show cause notice with a final order issued on 15.12.2023. Applying the precedent established in M/s A.V. Pharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., the Court determined that such orders could only be passed until 31.12.2023, even with time extensions. Since the proceedings were completed within this timeframe (15.12.2023), they were not time-barred. However, the Court ultimately quashed the impugned orders and proceedings, allowing the petition on other undisclosed grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
