ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
