Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging seizure of unaccounted mentha oil and caustic soda. The court held that under GST Act, section 35 mandates proper accounting of goods, and when discrepancies are found, sections 73/74 shall apply for tax determination. Section 130 cannot be invoked for proceedings related to excess stock discovered during survey. Precedents from previous judgments, including the court's own ruling in M/s Vijay Trading Company and subsequent SC orders, consistently affirmed that section 130 is inapplicable in such scenarios. The court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the petition, upholding the original seizure and penalty orders.
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging seizure of unaccounted mentha oil and caustic soda. The court held that under GST Act, section 35 mandates proper accounting of goods, and when discrepancies are found, sections 73/74 shall apply for tax determination. Section 130 cannot be invoked for proceedings related to excess stock discovered during survey. Precedents from previous judgments, including the court's own ruling in M/s Vijay Trading Company and subsequent SC orders, consistently affirmed that section 130 is inapplicable in such scenarios. The court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the petition, upholding the original seizure and penalty orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.