Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Liability of a private company director under Section 89 of the GST enactments places the burden of proof on the director to demonstrate that non-recovery of tax is not attributable to his gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty; the High Court quashed the impugned recovery notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, permitting the director to file a proper reply and discharge the statutory burden within two weeks. Failure to comply permits respondents to proceed to recover tax as if the writ were dismissed.
Liability of a private company director under Section 89 of the GST enactments places the burden of proof on the director to demonstrate that non-recovery of tax is not attributable to his gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty; the High Court quashed the impugned recovery notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, permitting the director to file a proper reply and discharge the statutory burden within two weeks. Failure to comply permits respondents to proceed to recover tax as if the writ were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
