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 held that the respondent's invocation of jurisdiction under s.161 of the GST enactments confirming tax, interest and penalty violated the principles of natural justice because the petitioner was not heard in person prior to the impugned order dated 23.08.2024, notwithstanding a written reply filed on 16.08.2024. The court nevertheless found that the petitioner had protracted litigation by invoking s.161 beyond its narrow remit to correct apparent errors on the face of the record. The petition was disposed of on condition that the petitioner deposit 100% of the disputed tax amounting to Rs. 11,33,488 within 30 days of receipt of the order.
The HC held that the respondent's invocation of jurisdiction under s.161 of the GST enactments confirming tax, interest and penalty violated the principles of natural justice because the petitioner was not heard in person prior to the impugned order dated 23.08.2024, notwithstanding a written reply filed on 16.08.2024. The court nevertheless found that the petitioner had protracted litigation by invoking s.161 beyond its narrow remit to correct apparent errors on the face of the record. The petition was disposed of on condition that the petitioner deposit 100% of the disputed tax amounting to Rs. 11,33,488 within 30 days of receipt of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
