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...
HC held that initiation of proceedings under s.130 of the GST Act based solely on alleged excess stock observed during a survey, without physical counting, was unsustainable. The court reiterated that registered persons must maintain accounts under s.35 and that s.35(6) permits determination of tax on unaccounted goods with applicability of ss.73/74 mutatis mutandis, but proceedings under s.130 are not the appropriate mechanism where excess stock is merely noted on survey. In consequence, the impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed, with directions accordingly, and no order for proceedings under s.130 to be sustained in the present facts.
HC held that initiation of proceedings under s.130 of the GST Act based solely on alleged excess stock observed during a survey, without physical counting, was unsustainable. The court reiterated that registered persons must maintain accounts under s.35 and that s.35(6) permits determination of tax on unaccounted goods with applicability of ss.73/74 mutatis mutandis, but proceedings under s.130 are not the appropriate mechanism where excess stock is merely noted on survey. In consequence, the impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed, with directions accordingly, and no order for proceedings under s.130 to be sustained in the present facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
