Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.