Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC quashed proceedings initiated under s.130 read with s.122 of the GST Act against the petitioner, holding that survey-discovered excess stock must be addressed under the statutory machinery of s.73/74 and not by invoking s.130. The court emphasized that the GST Act is a self-contained code prescribing specific procedures where goods are unrecorded in books, obliging the proper officer to proceed under s.73/74. Reliance on prior higher-court rulings confirming that s.130 is inapplicable to excess stock found during survey reinforced the conclusion. Consequently, the impugned orders based on s.130/ s.122 were held unsustainable and were quashed; the petition was allowed.
The HC quashed proceedings initiated under s.130 read with s.122 of the GST Act against the petitioner, holding that survey-discovered excess stock must be addressed under the statutory machinery of s.73/74 and not by invoking s.130. The court emphasized that the GST Act is a self-contained code prescribing specific procedures where goods are unrecorded in books, obliging the proper officer to proceed under s.73/74. Reliance on prior higher-court rulings confirming that s.130 is inapplicable to excess stock found during survey reinforced the conclusion. Consequently, the impugned orders based on s.130/ s.122 were held unsustainable and were quashed; the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.