Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of the respondent authorities dated 9 August 2025, holding that the detained goods and vehicle must be released under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with the IGST Act, on the invoice value of the goods. The court found no basis to disturb the petitioner's entitlement to release and directed the respondent authorities to undertake the valuation and release exercise in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) within three weeks. The writ petition challenging detention was accordingly allowed, and the administrative detention order set aside.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of the respondent authorities dated 9 August 2025, holding that the detained goods and vehicle must be released under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with the IGST Act, on the invoice value of the goods. The court found no basis to disturb the petitioner's entitlement to release and directed the respondent authorities to undertake the valuation and release exercise in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) within three weeks. The writ petition challenging detention was accordingly allowed, and the administrative detention order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.