Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Whether the tax authority could reopen and seek recovery of an allegedly erroneous refund of input tax credit for zero-rated exports by issuing a demand-cum-show cause notice under s.73, despite a prior appellate order on the same refund, was the dominant issue. The court held that appellate orders attain finality and bind the parties under s.107(16) unless varied or reversed, and the adjudicating authority is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel from re-agitating the same objection; proceeding mechanically and contrary to the appellate determination also offends natural justice. Consequently, the impugned notices proposing adjudication under s.73 were set aside and the petition was allowed. - HC
Whether the tax authority could reopen and seek recovery of an allegedly erroneous refund of input tax credit for zero-rated exports by issuing a demand-cum-show cause notice under s.73, despite a prior appellate order on the same refund, was the dominant issue. The court held that appellate orders attain finality and bind the parties under s.107(16) unless varied or reversed, and the adjudicating authority is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel from re-agitating the same objection; proceeding mechanically and contrary to the appellate determination also offends natural justice. Consequently, the impugned notices proposing adjudication under s.73 were set aside and the petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
