Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 95875 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
