Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
