Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 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 held that initiation of proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act is impermissible where excess stock is found during a survey. Instead, proceedings must be initiated under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act for tax recovery. The Court emphasized that the law consistently mandates the use of sections 73/74 in such cases, rejecting invocation of section 130 read with the relevant rules. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Commissioner were quashed as unsustainable in law. The petition was allowed, clarifying that assessment and recovery in cases of excess stock found during survey must proceed exclusively under sections 73/74, not section 130.
The HC held that initiation of proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act is impermissible where excess stock is found during a survey. Instead, proceedings must be initiated under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act for tax recovery. The Court emphasized that the law consistently mandates the use of sections 73/74 in such cases, rejecting invocation of section 130 read with the relevant rules. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Commissioner were quashed as unsustainable in law. The petition was allowed, clarifying that assessment and recovery in cases of excess stock found during survey must proceed exclusively under sections 73/74, not section 130.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.