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 dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned orders instituting proceedings under section 130 read with section 122 of the GST Act against the respondent. Relying on statutory obligations under section 35 and sub-section (6) thereof, the Court affirmed that where a survey reveals unaccounted goods the Proper Officer may determine tax liability and invoke provisions of sections 73/74 mutatis mutandis; the Court considered but distinguished prior authorities addressing use of section 130 for excess stock and concluded there was no jurisdictional infirmity or ground to interfere with the initiation of proceedings. Petition accordingly dismissed.
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned orders instituting proceedings under section 130 read with section 122 of the GST Act against the respondent. Relying on statutory obligations under section 35 and sub-section (6) thereof, the Court affirmed that where a survey reveals unaccounted goods the Proper Officer may determine tax liability and invoke provisions of sections 73/74 mutatis mutandis; the Court considered but distinguished prior authorities addressing use of section 130 for excess stock and concluded there was no jurisdictional infirmity or ground to interfere with the initiation of proceedings. Petition accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
