Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
Detention of perishable goods could not be left pending for months without a formal seizure order or timely action under the statutory detention framework. The High Court required the authorities to determine ownership on the basis of the accompanying invoices and the applicable departmental clarification, under which the consignor or consignee is treated as the owner where the prescribed documents accompany the consignment. It also rejected the insistence on the petitioner's personal appearance, holding that representation through an advocate is permitted in GST proceedings. The matter was directed to be heard immediately, with liberty to deposit the amount under Section 129(1)(a) and for release to follow in accordance with law if payment was accepted.
Detention of perishable goods could not be left pending for months without a formal seizure order or timely action under the statutory detention framework. The High Court required the authorities to determine ownership on the basis of the accompanying invoices and the applicable departmental clarification, under which the consignor or consignee is treated as the owner where the prescribed documents accompany the consignment. It also rejected the insistence on the petitioner's personal appearance, holding that representation through an advocate is permitted in GST proceedings. The matter was directed to be heard immediately, with liberty to deposit the amount under Section 129(1)(a) and for release to follow in accordance with law if payment was accepted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.