Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
State tax officers cannot invoke detention or confiscation powers for inter-State movement of goods under the IGST regime where the State has no tax allocation in the transaction. The Court held that cross-empowerment under GST is limited to functions assigned to the State as proper officer, and Andhra Pradesh officers may act under the IGST Act only where the State is entitled to a share of tax; otherwise they may merely forward the material to the proper officers of the consignor and consignee. The Court also held that valuation disputes, alleged undervaluation, description mismatch, excess quantity, or absence of an e-way bill, without more, do not justify action under detention and confiscation provisions. The impugned proceedings were set aside as without jurisdiction.
State tax officers cannot invoke detention or confiscation powers for inter-State movement of goods under the IGST regime where the State has no tax allocation in the transaction. The Court held that cross-empowerment under GST is limited to functions assigned to the State as proper officer, and Andhra Pradesh officers may act under the IGST Act only where the State is entitled to a share of tax; otherwise they may merely forward the material to the proper officers of the consignor and consignee. The Court also held that valuation disputes, alleged undervaluation, description mismatch, excess quantity, or absence of an e-way bill, without more, do not justify action under detention and confiscation provisions. The impugned proceedings were set aside as without jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
