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...
Petitioner alleges compliance with pre-deposit obligations at two appellate stages and seeks relief from recovery; court directed petitioner to make representation to GST authorities proving payment and allowed authorities to verify and call for clarifications. Any sum recovered in excess of the cumulative deposits required at the two appellate stages must be refunded. Court did not determine merits and left substantive decision to the GST authorities, who may examine evidence and take an informed decision on refund and stay-related consequences.
Petitioner alleges compliance with pre-deposit obligations at two appellate stages and seeks relief from recovery; court directed petitioner to make representation to GST authorities proving payment and allowed authorities to verify and call for clarifications. Any sum recovered in excess of the cumulative deposits required at the two appellate stages must be refunded. Court did not determine merits and left substantive decision to the GST authorities, who may examine evidence and take an informed decision on refund and stay-related consequences.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
