Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 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 allowed the petition under section 74 of the UP VAT Act and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court held that the petitioner failed to adduce material proving payment through banking channels, yet the initiation of proceedings rested on a subsequent physical inspection finding the selling dealer absent despite contemporaneous filings (GSTR-1/3B) evidencing returns and tax payment. Absent any recorded finding of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax, section 74 could not be validly invoked. The HC directed the assessing authority to verify transactional records on statutory portals and reconsider assessment in accordance with law and applicable procedural circulars.
The HC allowed the petition under section 74 of the UP VAT Act and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court held that the petitioner failed to adduce material proving payment through banking channels, yet the initiation of proceedings rested on a subsequent physical inspection finding the selling dealer absent despite contemporaneous filings (GSTR-1/3B) evidencing returns and tax payment. Absent any recorded finding of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax, section 74 could not be validly invoked. The HC directed the assessing authority to verify transactional records on statutory portals and reconsider assessment in accordance with law and applicable procedural circulars.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.