Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
