Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
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 4886 
