Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
A writ petition challenging detention and penalty under s.129(1)(a) and s.129(1)(b) of the GST Act was held not maintainable due to an efficacious statutory appeal under s.107, as the case did not fall within recognised exceptions to the alternate-remedy rule; disputed facts regarding alleged denial of personal hearing could not be satisfactorily resolved on affidavits, and the action was not shown to be wholly without jurisdiction, despite reliance on the hearing requirement for GST MOV-9. Consequently, the petitioner was relegated to appeal, with a direction for expeditious disposal if filed promptly. To prevent spoilage of perishable goods, release of goods and conveyance was ordered upon payment of penalty under s.129(1)(a) and furnishing a bank guarantee securing the balance under s.129(1)(b). - HC
A writ petition challenging detention and penalty under s.129(1)(a) and s.129(1)(b) of the GST Act was held not maintainable due to an efficacious statutory appeal under s.107, as the case did not fall within recognised exceptions to the alternate-remedy rule; disputed facts regarding alleged denial of personal hearing could not be satisfactorily resolved on affidavits, and the action was not shown to be wholly without jurisdiction, despite reliance on the hearing requirement for GST MOV-9. Consequently, the petitioner was relegated to appeal, with a direction for expeditious disposal if filed promptly. To prevent spoilage of perishable goods, release of goods and conveyance was ordered upon payment of penalty under s.129(1)(a) and furnishing a bank guarantee securing the balance under s.129(1)(b). - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.