Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
A writ petition against a show cause notice was entertained because the matter had been pending for years, pleadings were complete, no further factual enquiry was needed, and the notice itself showed that the amount collected as GST matched the amount paid to the Government. On those admitted facts, the Court treated the issue as a pure question of law on the scope of Section 76 of the CGST Act and held that the provision could not be used to demand tax again merely because payment was made through another GST registration of the same assessee in the same State. Section 76 targets non-remittance of tax collected, not double taxation where the revenue has already received the amount.
A writ petition against a show cause notice was entertained because the matter had been pending for years, pleadings were complete, no further factual enquiry was needed, and the notice itself showed that the amount collected as GST matched the amount paid to the Government. On those admitted facts, the Court treated the issue as a pure question of law on the scope of Section 76 of the CGST Act and held that the provision could not be used to demand tax again merely because payment was made through another GST registration of the same assessee in the same State. Section 76 targets non-remittance of tax collected, not double taxation where the revenue has already received the amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.