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...
The HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to quash or modify the show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, finding no basis to interfere at this stage. The Court held that allegations of suppression of facts could not be dismissed prematurely and must be examined by the issuing authority. The petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks, which the authority is directed to consider. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no relief granted against the issuance or content of the notice, thereby preserving the procedural rights of the parties under the CGST Act.
The HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to quash or modify the show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, finding no basis to interfere at this stage. The Court held that allegations of suppression of facts could not be dismissed prematurely and must be examined by the issuing authority. The petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks, which the authority is directed to consider. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no relief granted against the issuance or content of the notice, thereby preserving the procedural rights of the parties under the CGST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
