Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC upheld the impugned detention and seizure orders and dismissed the petitioner's challenge. The Court held that an officer appointed under the State GST is competent to act as the Proper Officer for purposes of IGST and CGST; absence of a separate notification under section 4 of the IGST statute did not vitiate that competence absent specific exceptions recommended by the GST Council. The Court found the consignments were accompanied by forged, bogus and fictitious documents, transactions were not reflected on the GST portal, and the petitioner failed to impeach the factual findings that it was not the owner. Consequently, the detention/seizure and attendant proceedings under section 129(1)(b) were sustained.
The HC upheld the impugned detention and seizure orders and dismissed the petitioner's challenge. The Court held that an officer appointed under the State GST is competent to act as the Proper Officer for purposes of IGST and CGST; absence of a separate notification under section 4 of the IGST statute did not vitiate that competence absent specific exceptions recommended by the GST Council. The Court found the consignments were accompanied by forged, bogus and fictitious documents, transactions were not reflected on the GST portal, and the petitioner failed to impeach the factual findings that it was not the owner. Consequently, the detention/seizure and attendant proceedings under section 129(1)(b) were sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
