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...
HC held that a show-cause notice issued under s.130 of the UPGST Act, 2017, before any adjudication of tax liability under ss.73/74, contravenes s.35 and is therefore jurisdictionally defective. The court quashed and set aside the s.122 read with s.130 notice and the impugned adjudicatory order dated 17.09.2025, and also quashed the seizure order dated 06.09.2025. The petition is disposed. The revenue is left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings consonant with statutory prescription by issuing show-cause notices under the appropriate substantive provisions of the Act, 2017, after determining tax liability in accordance with law.
HC held that a show-cause notice issued under s.130 of the UPGST Act, 2017, before any adjudication of tax liability under ss.73/74, contravenes s.35 and is therefore jurisdictionally defective. The court quashed and set aside the s.122 read with s.130 notice and the impugned adjudicatory order dated 17.09.2025, and also quashed the seizure order dated 06.09.2025. The petition is disposed. The revenue is left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings consonant with statutory prescription by issuing show-cause notices under the appropriate substantive provisions of the Act, 2017, after determining tax liability in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
