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...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
HC allowed the petition and quashed the show-cause notice dated 13.08.2021 issued by the Central Proper Officer and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2025. The court held that, by virtue of Section 6(1) and the bar in Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, the Central Proper Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 74 after the State Proper Officer had earlier commenced intelligence-based enforcement; summons under Section 70 did not amount to initiation of rival "proceedings." Consequently, the Central-originated proceedings are non est ab initio and the resultant order cannot be sustained. Petition allowed.
HC allowed the petition and quashed the show-cause notice dated 13.08.2021 issued by the Central Proper Officer and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2025. The court held that, by virtue of Section 6(1) and the bar in Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, the Central Proper Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 74 after the State Proper Officer had earlier commenced intelligence-based enforcement; summons under Section 70 did not amount to initiation of rival "proceedings." Consequently, the Central-originated proceedings are non est ab initio and the resultant order cannot be sustained. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
