Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 
