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 dismissed the petition challenging the levy of penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017, and related provisions, concerning fraudulent use of a second GST registration. The court found contradictions in the petitioner's claim of non-use of the second registration and noted the petitioner's failure to actively pursue the investigation since 2019. The petition was held to be premature for writ relief due to the necessity of factual inquiry and the expiry of the limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court emphasized the petitioner's responsibility to safeguard its identity and held that the impugned order did not merit interference. The petitioner was directed to avail statutory remedies by filing an appeal within the prescribed time with the requisite pre-deposit.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the levy of penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017, and related provisions, concerning fraudulent use of a second GST registration. The court found contradictions in the petitioner's claim of non-use of the second registration and noted the petitioner's failure to actively pursue the investigation since 2019. The petition was held to be premature for writ relief due to the necessity of factual inquiry and the expiry of the limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court emphasized the petitioner's responsibility to safeguard its identity and held that the impugned order did not merit interference. The petitioner was directed to avail statutory remedies by filing an appeal within the prescribed time with the requisite pre-deposit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
