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 set aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 23.01.2025 due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature, rendering the order invalid. Citing precedent from multiple Division Bench rulings, the Court reaffirmed that the signature on an assessment order is mandatory and cannot be cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The matter was remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh assessment, mandating issuance of notice and proper signing of the new order. The limitation period is tolled from the date of the original impugned order until receipt of this judgment. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.
The HC set aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 23.01.2025 due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature, rendering the order invalid. Citing precedent from multiple Division Bench rulings, the Court reaffirmed that the signature on an assessment order is mandatory and cannot be cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The matter was remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh assessment, mandating issuance of notice and proper signing of the new order. The limitation period is tolled from the date of the original impugned order until receipt of this judgment. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.