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 held that the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act against the petitioner were unsustainable as the petitioner complied with the statutory requirements under Rule 138A of the CGST Rules. The petitioner produced both the invoice issued by it and the E-way bill at the time of interception, which were the requisite documents for lawful transit of goods. Alleged discrepancies raised by the revenue were not reflected in any official notices and thus could not be relied upon to justify detention. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned notices and orders initiating the proceedings, thereby setting aside the detention of goods and terminating the action under Section 129. The writ petition was allowed, resulting in the quashing of Exts.P2, P2(a), P2(b), and P3.
The HC held that the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act against the petitioner were unsustainable as the petitioner complied with the statutory requirements under Rule 138A of the CGST Rules. The petitioner produced both the invoice issued by it and the E-way bill at the time of interception, which were the requisite documents for lawful transit of goods. Alleged discrepancies raised by the revenue were not reflected in any official notices and thus could not be relied upon to justify detention. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned notices and orders initiating the proceedings, thereby setting aside the detention of goods and terminating the action under Section 129. The writ petition was allowed, resulting in the quashing of Exts.P2, P2(a), P2(b), and P3.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
