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...
The HC quashed the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 and remitted the matter to the respondent with directions to pass a fresh order levying a reduced penalty under section 47(2) after issuing due notice to the petitioner. The court observed the petitioner failed to furnish the annual return (GSTR-9) for FY 2020-21 beyond the statutory window under section 44(2) and Rule 80(1A), but treated the late-fee/demand under section 47(2) as venial, noting the petitioner's willingness to file the return. The petition is disposed of with the respondent directed to re-determine penalty quantum consistent with these observations.
The HC quashed the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 and remitted the matter to the respondent with directions to pass a fresh order levying a reduced penalty under section 47(2) after issuing due notice to the petitioner. The court observed the petitioner failed to furnish the annual return (GSTR-9) for FY 2020-21 beyond the statutory window under section 44(2) and Rule 80(1A), but treated the late-fee/demand under section 47(2) as venial, noting the petitioner's willingness to file the return. The petition is disposed of with the respondent directed to re-determine penalty quantum consistent with these observations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.