Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Attachment and recovery from a company's bank account was challenged on the ground that the demand and adjudication were issued against a distinct juristic entity. The court held that where the show-cause notice and adjudication order were addressed to another company, the petitioner could not be fastened with that entity's dues absent any garnishee relationship or proved liability to pay amounts to the defaulter. It further held that common directorship alone is insufficient to lift the corporate veil for recovery, and such veil-piercing was impermissible on the pleaded facts. Consequently, the impugned recovery/attachment order was quashed and the petition was allowed with directions to appear before the authority. - HC
Attachment and recovery from a company's bank account was challenged on the ground that the demand and adjudication were issued against a distinct juristic entity. The court held that where the show-cause notice and adjudication order were addressed to another company, the petitioner could not be fastened with that entity's dues absent any garnishee relationship or proved liability to pay amounts to the defaulter. It further held that common directorship alone is insufficient to lift the corporate veil for recovery, and such veil-piercing was impermissible on the pleaded facts. Consequently, the impugned recovery/attachment order was quashed and the petition was allowed with directions to appear before the authority. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.