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" ?
The HC dismissed petitioners' challenge to investigation proceedings concerning large-scale tax evasion through fraudulent input tax credit under HPGST/CGST Act. The court held that Cr.P.C provisions apply to GST Act proceedings absent contrary provisions, citing Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India. Petitioners' contention that investigation was improper because officials failed to contact Delhi GST authorities was rejected. The court found that discovering non-existent entities at invoice addresses sufficiently established prima facie case of fake invoices. Following Mukesh Singh precedent, the court ruled investigation validity is not vitiated merely because departmental officials conducted it. The HC emphasized that while exercising inherent power, courts examine prima facie cases without evaluating evidence creditworthiness, which remains trial court's domain. Consequently, the complaint could not be quashed based on alleged investigative deficiencies.
The HC dismissed petitioners' challenge to investigation proceedings concerning large-scale tax evasion through fraudulent input tax credit under HPGST/CGST Act. The court held that Cr.P.C provisions apply to GST Act proceedings absent contrary provisions, citing Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India. Petitioners' contention that investigation was improper because officials failed to contact Delhi GST authorities was rejected. The court found that discovering non-existent entities at invoice addresses sufficiently established prima facie case of fake invoices. Following Mukesh Singh precedent, the court ruled investigation validity is not vitiated merely because departmental officials conducted it. The HC emphasized that while exercising inherent power, courts examine prima facie cases without evaluating evidence creditworthiness, which remains trial court's domain. Consequently, the complaint could not be quashed based on alleged investigative deficiencies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
