Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
HC held that under Sections 74(1), (2), and (10), each assessment year must be proceeded separately by the proper officer. The statutory time limit for issuing orders is distinct for each financial year. The court mandates independent show cause notices for different assessment years, recognizing that taxpayers can raise separate defenses for each year. The composite notice challenging jurisdictional propriety was partially set aside, with the notice for 2017-2018 sustained and notices for 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 quashed. The appellate court found the single judge's interpretation erroneous and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for precise, year-specific tax assessment procedures.
HC held that under Sections 74(1), (2), and (10), each assessment year must be proceeded separately by the proper officer. The statutory time limit for issuing orders is distinct for each financial year. The court mandates independent show cause notices for different assessment years, recognizing that taxpayers can raise separate defenses for each year. The composite notice challenging jurisdictional propriety was partially set aside, with the notice for 2017-2018 sustained and notices for 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 quashed. The appellate court found the single judge's interpretation erroneous and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for precise, year-specific tax assessment procedures.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
