Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
Section 122(1) of the GST enactments was held to prescribe a mandatory penalty once the provision is attracted, because the phrase "whichever is higher" leaves no discretion to impose a lesser amount on proportionality grounds. The High Court rejected reliance on proportionality decisions from labour and excise jurisprudence, and noted that the petitioners were prima facie liable on the material in the assessment orders. It also found no procedural irregularity or lack of reasons in the impugned orders, and held that the statutory appellate remedy must be pursued instead of writ relief. The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were allowed to file appeals with the 10% pre-deposit requirement dispensed with.
Section 122(1) of the GST enactments was held to prescribe a mandatory penalty once the provision is attracted, because the phrase "whichever is higher" leaves no discretion to impose a lesser amount on proportionality grounds. The High Court rejected reliance on proportionality decisions from labour and excise jurisprudence, and noted that the petitioners were prima facie liable on the material in the assessment orders. It also found no procedural irregularity or lack of reasons in the impugned orders, and held that the statutory appellate remedy must be pursued instead of writ relief. The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were allowed to file appeals with the 10% pre-deposit requirement dispensed with.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
