Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 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 and quashed the impugned orders dated 29.05.2024 (respondent no.2) and 21.10.2023 (respondent no.3), holding that initiation of proceedings under section 130 read with section 122 of the GST Act is impermissible where excess stock is discovered during survey and proceedings under sections 73/74 have already been initiated. The court applied binding precedent affirmed by the SC, concluding that section 130 proceedings cannot be invoked to convert survey-discovered excess stock into a separate penal or adjudicatory process. Consequently, all consequential actions premised on the impugned orders were set aside and the petition was allowed.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 29.05.2024 (respondent no.2) and 21.10.2023 (respondent no.3), holding that initiation of proceedings under section 130 read with section 122 of the GST Act is impermissible where excess stock is discovered during survey and proceedings under sections 73/74 have already been initiated. The court applied binding precedent affirmed by the SC, concluding that section 130 proceedings cannot be invoked to convert survey-discovered excess stock into a separate penal or adjudicatory process. Consequently, all consequential actions premised on the impugned orders were set aside and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
