Money laundering property attachment and third-party encumbrance rights clarified; prior bona fide interests enforceable before confiscation, appeals ...
Profiteering in construction services for failure to pass input tax credit resulted in repayment exceeding the commensurate benefit and closure of pro...
HC held that two assessment orders could not survive for the same tax period and same discrepancies against the same assessee. One impugned order for 2021-2022 was therefore quashed as duplicative, while the Department was left free to proceed under the other order, which also covered an additional discrepancy. Separately, an ex parte assessment was set aside on equitable grounds because the assessee claimed lack of awareness of the notice after GST registration cancellation, the merits had been explained, and a substantial part of the disputed tax had already been recovered. That matter was remanded for fresh consideration with a direction to file reply and documents, and the bank attachment was lifted.
HC held that two assessment orders could not survive for the same tax period and same discrepancies against the same assessee. One impugned order for 2021-2022 was therefore quashed as duplicative, while the Department was left free to proceed under the other order, which also covered an additional discrepancy. Separately, an ex parte assessment was set aside on equitable grounds because the assessee claimed lack of awareness of the notice after GST registration cancellation, the merits had been explained, and a substantial part of the disputed tax had already been recovered. That matter was remanded for fresh consideration with a direction to file reply and documents, and the bank attachment was lifted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.