Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned departmental orders. The court held that the SCN issued under s.74 UPGST Act was unjustified because the petitioner proved actual movement of goods and payment of tax, and the record contained no findings of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts aimed at tax evasion. Applying the principle that incorrect statements absent knowledge or intent do not constitute wilful suppression, the HC concluded that proceedings under s.74 could not be sustained. Consequently, the order dated 20.12.2022 of the Additional Commissioner and the order dated 12.01.2022 of the Deputy Commissioner were set aside and the petition was allowed.
HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned departmental orders. The court held that the SCN issued under s.74 UPGST Act was unjustified because the petitioner proved actual movement of goods and payment of tax, and the record contained no findings of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts aimed at tax evasion. Applying the principle that incorrect statements absent knowledge or intent do not constitute wilful suppression, the HC concluded that proceedings under s.74 could not be sustained. Consequently, the order dated 20.12.2022 of the Additional Commissioner and the order dated 12.01.2022 of the Deputy Commissioner were set aside and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.