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 allowed the writ petition, quashing the subsequent order (Ext.P8) and rejection order (Ext.P14), recognizing that the initial order (Ext.P7) had already conclusively adjudicated the assessment discrepancies for 2017-2018. The court held that under Section 161 of the GST Act, rectification can be initiated suo motu when an error is apparent on record, particularly in cases involving mutually conflicting departmental orders. The petitioner's timely email communication within the statutory period was deemed significant in establishing the basis for rectification, despite the technical non-compliance with portal submission requirements.
HC allowed the writ petition, quashing the subsequent order (Ext.P8) and rejection order (Ext.P14), recognizing that the initial order (Ext.P7) had already conclusively adjudicated the assessment discrepancies for 2017-2018. The court held that under Section 161 of the GST Act, rectification can be initiated suo motu when an error is apparent on record, particularly in cases involving mutually conflicting departmental orders. The petitioner's timely email communication within the statutory period was deemed significant in establishing the basis for rectification, despite the technical non-compliance with portal submission requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.