Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging imposition of penalty under s.122 CGST, finding fraudulent availment of input tax credit through creation and operation of non-existent bogus firms by the petitioner and associates. The court held that matters involving complex transactions and voluminous evidence arising from investigatory findings are ordinarily unsuitable for writ relief and are more appropriately addressed through statutory appellate remedies; the impugned order is appealable under s.107 CGST. The HC further upheld the validity of Circular No.254/11/2025 appointing the proper officer, observing the Additional Commissioner was empowered to issue the show cause notice under s.122. Writ relief was refused and the petition dismissed.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging imposition of penalty under s.122 CGST, finding fraudulent availment of input tax credit through creation and operation of non-existent bogus firms by the petitioner and associates. The court held that matters involving complex transactions and voluminous evidence arising from investigatory findings are ordinarily unsuitable for writ relief and are more appropriately addressed through statutory appellate remedies; the impugned order is appealable under s.107 CGST. The HC further upheld the validity of Circular No.254/11/2025 appointing the proper officer, observing the Additional Commissioner was empowered to issue the show cause notice under s.122. Writ relief was refused and the petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.