Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.