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 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Petition dismissed for want of locus to challenge detention and confiscation proceedings where High Court found insufficient nexus between petitioner and intercepted consignment; E-way bill showed different dispatch and consignee locations, registration and documentation discrepancies, and neither supplier nor recipient sought release, leading the Court to conclude lack of standing. Court also refused to quash the show cause notice under Section 130, treating interference as premature in view of precedent and noting indicia of tax evasion and deceptive documentation on the record.
Petition dismissed for want of locus to challenge detention and confiscation proceedings where High Court found insufficient nexus between petitioner and intercepted consignment; E-way bill showed different dispatch and consignee locations, registration and documentation discrepancies, and neither supplier nor recipient sought release, leading the Court to conclude lack of standing. Court also refused to quash the show cause notice under Section 130, treating interference as premature in view of precedent and noting indicia of tax evasion and deceptive documentation on the record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.