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HC invalidated the tax recovery action against the petitioner, finding the assessment order withdrawn under Section 62(2) as a matter of legal fiction. The court determined that since the original tax assessment order lost legal efficacy after the petitioner timely filed GSTR 3B and paid taxes within statutory period, the subsequent recovery proceedings were procedurally improper. The respondent tax authority acted ultra vires by initiating recovery without issuing prior notice, particularly after approximately five years from the original demand date. The HC directed respondent authorities to file their response within two weeks and scheduled further hearing.
HC invalidated the tax recovery action against the petitioner, finding the assessment order withdrawn under Section 62(2) as a matter of legal fiction. The court determined that since the original tax assessment order lost legal efficacy after the petitioner timely filed GSTR 3B and paid taxes within statutory period, the subsequent recovery proceedings were procedurally improper. The respondent tax authority acted ultra vires by initiating recovery without issuing prior notice, particularly after approximately five years from the original demand date. The HC directed respondent authorities to file their response within two weeks and scheduled further hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.