Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Bank account attachment under a GST recovery notice was vacated where the petitioner had received the supplies and had already reversed the input tax credit during departmental proceedings that were later dropped. The Court balanced the petitioner's position against the supplier's possible entitlement to payment, noting that that entitlement had to be worked out separately in collateral proceedings. The attachment was therefore released, but the petitioner was restrained from making any direct or indirect payment to the supplier unless appropriate orders were obtained in those separate proceedings.
Bank account attachment under a GST recovery notice was vacated where the petitioner had received the supplies and had already reversed the input tax credit during departmental proceedings that were later dropped. The Court balanced the petitioner's position against the supplier's possible entitlement to payment, noting that that entitlement had to be worked out separately in collateral proceedings. The attachment was therefore released, but the petitioner was restrained from making any direct or indirect payment to the supplier unless appropriate orders were obtained in those separate proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.