Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
