Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
The U.P. GST law did not exclude prosecution under the general penal law for alleged creation of fake firms, fictitious invoices and wrongful input tax credit claims, because its without prejudice clause preserves other penal provisions and does not bar an FIR for offences under general criminal law. The Court rejected the plea that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was inapplicable merely because GST offences were also alleged. On the facts, prima facie material showed involvement in creating a fictitious firm, generating false e-way bills through another bogus concern, and evading tax without actual movement of goods, so bail was refused.
The U.P. GST law did not exclude prosecution under the general penal law for alleged creation of fake firms, fictitious invoices and wrongful input tax credit claims, because its without prejudice clause preserves other penal provisions and does not bar an FIR for offences under general criminal law. The Court rejected the plea that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was inapplicable merely because GST offences were also alleged. On the facts, prima facie material showed involvement in creating a fictitious firm, generating false e-way bills through another bogus concern, and evading tax without actual movement of goods, so bail was refused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.