Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
Whether the penalty quantified under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was computed erroneously was the dominant issue. Applying the principle in a prior binding decision on similar facts, the Court held that the penalty must be re-determined strictly in accordance with the statutory formula under Section 129(1)(a), and an order reflecting an incorrect computation cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned penalty order was set aside and the tax authorities were directed to re-compute and determine the penalty afresh within three weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of. - HC
Whether the penalty quantified under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was computed erroneously was the dominant issue. Applying the principle in a prior binding decision on similar facts, the Court held that the penalty must be re-determined strictly in accordance with the statutory formula under Section 129(1)(a), and an order reflecting an incorrect computation cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned penalty order was set aside and the tax authorities were directed to re-compute and determine the penalty afresh within three weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
