Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Arbitration of SEZ sub-lease monetary claims preserves rent, maintenance, termination, improvements and damages disputes while unused premises are vac...
Scientific research approval grants a research association tax recognition, subject to annual donor reporting, certification, and regulatory complianc...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Proceedings initiated under section 130 read with section 122 of the GST Act based solely on excess stock found during a survey, without actual verification or weightment, are impermissible. The HC held that the GST Act provides a specific mechanism under sections 73/74 for dealing with unrecorded goods, and thus section 130 cannot be invoked in such circumstances. Precedents from this HC and the SC affirm that excess stock discovered at survey does not warrant initiation of proceedings under section 130. Consequently, the impugned orders issued on this basis were quashed, and the petition was allowed, confirming that section 130 proceedings cannot be employed for excess stock findings during a survey.
Proceedings initiated under section 130 read with section 122 of the GST Act based solely on excess stock found during a survey, without actual verification or weightment, are impermissible. The HC held that the GST Act provides a specific mechanism under sections 73/74 for dealing with unrecorded goods, and thus section 130 cannot be invoked in such circumstances. Precedents from this HC and the SC affirm that excess stock discovered at survey does not warrant initiation of proceedings under section 130. Consequently, the impugned orders issued on this basis were quashed, and the petition was allowed, confirming that section 130 proceedings cannot be employed for excess stock findings during a survey.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.