Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.