Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Section 129(3) was held to be directory as to the seven-day timelines for issuing notice and passing the penalty order, because the statute uses procedural deadlines to secure expedition but does not make delay fatal to jurisdiction or validity. The Court rejected the view that non-compliance automatically renders detention proceedings time-barred, and found no basis to interfere on limitation where the notice was issued within seven days and the penalty order followed on the eighth day, amounting to substantial compliance. The petitioner, being a registered dealer when the transaction began, was treated as the bona fide owner and was entitled to release of the detained goods and vehicle on deposit, under protest, of an amount equal to the penalty, with liberty to challenge the penalty order separately.
Section 129(3) was held to be directory as to the seven-day timelines for issuing notice and passing the penalty order, because the statute uses procedural deadlines to secure expedition but does not make delay fatal to jurisdiction or validity. The Court rejected the view that non-compliance automatically renders detention proceedings time-barred, and found no basis to interfere on limitation where the notice was issued within seven days and the penalty order followed on the eighth day, amounting to substantial compliance. The petitioner, being a registered dealer when the transaction began, was treated as the bona fide owner and was entitled to release of the detained goods and vehicle on deposit, under protest, of an amount equal to the penalty, with liberty to challenge the penalty order separately.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
