Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that notwithstanding procedural objections including alleged violation of natural justice, an unreasoned and unsigned order and breaches of Rule 26(3) and Rule 142(1) of the BGST/CGST Rules, the impugned order emanated from the petitioner's unequivocal admission of wrongfully availing and utilising input tax credit for 2017-18. The court found no substantive prejudice requiring judicial interference: the petitioner had filed a reply and no mandatory personal hearing omission vitiated the outcome. The Proper Officer merely raised a demand for interest under s.50(3) of the BGST Act, 2017; no penalty was imposed. Exercise of writ jurisdiction was declined and the petition was dismissed.
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that notwithstanding procedural objections including alleged violation of natural justice, an unreasoned and unsigned order and breaches of Rule 26(3) and Rule 142(1) of the BGST/CGST Rules, the impugned order emanated from the petitioner's unequivocal admission of wrongfully availing and utilising input tax credit for 2017-18. The court found no substantive prejudice requiring judicial interference: the petitioner had filed a reply and no mandatory personal hearing omission vitiated the outcome. The Proper Officer merely raised a demand for interest under s.50(3) of the BGST Act, 2017; no penalty was imposed. Exercise of writ jurisdiction was declined and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
