Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
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 
