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 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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
