Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
State GST authorities were held to lack jurisdiction to initiate or continue proceedings where Central GST authorities had already initiated proceedings against the taxpayer by issuing a show-cause notice, since dual/parallel proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Applying the binding precedent on identical facts, the impugned order-in-original and its summary were treated as without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order-in-original and the summary were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
State GST authorities were held to lack jurisdiction to initiate or continue proceedings where Central GST authorities had already initiated proceedings against the taxpayer by issuing a show-cause notice, since dual/parallel proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Applying the binding precedent on identical facts, the impugned order-in-original and its summary were treated as without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order-in-original and the summary were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
