Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
