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...
HC adjudicated a tax seizure case involving inter-unit transportation of goods. The court determined that no tax evasion occurred during the transfer of a compactor machine from Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh. Despite initial interception due to missing documentation, the subsequent production of delivery challan and e-way bill demonstrated compliance. The court emphasized that stock transfers between organizational units without a sales transaction do not attract GST liability. Critically, the respondent authority failed to establish any deliberate intent to circumvent tax regulations. Relying on precedential reasoning, the HC ruled that procedural technicalities did not warrant punitive action. The petition was ultimately allowed, nullifying the seizure proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
HC adjudicated a tax seizure case involving inter-unit transportation of goods. The court determined that no tax evasion occurred during the transfer of a compactor machine from Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh. Despite initial interception due to missing documentation, the subsequent production of delivery challan and e-way bill demonstrated compliance. The court emphasized that stock transfers between organizational units without a sales transaction do not attract GST liability. Critically, the respondent authority failed to establish any deliberate intent to circumvent tax regulations. Relying on precedential reasoning, the HC ruled that procedural technicalities did not warrant punitive action. The petition was ultimately allowed, nullifying the seizure proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
