Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 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 the writ petition challenging the imposition of penalty under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act for fraudulent availment of ITC through fake firms. The court found that the petitioner, a GST consultant and former GST Department employee, was complicit in creating fictitious entities and aware of the ongoing fraudulent transactions. The petitioner failed to rebut the allegations of benefiting from the fraud, and the continuous nature of the offense satisfied the conditions for penalty under Section 122(1A). Although the limitation period for challenging the order had expired, the HC allowed the petitioner an opportunity to pursue appellate remedies under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the imposition of penalty under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act for fraudulent availment of ITC through fake firms. The court found that the petitioner, a GST consultant and former GST Department employee, was complicit in creating fictitious entities and aware of the ongoing fraudulent transactions. The petitioner failed to rebut the allegations of benefiting from the fraud, and the continuous nature of the offense satisfied the conditions for penalty under Section 122(1A). Although the limitation period for challenging the order had expired, the HC allowed the petitioner an opportunity to pursue appellate remedies under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
