Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Perishable goods detained in transit were ordered to be released to the petitioner because the demand order disclosed no concrete or prima facie material negating the petitioner's ownership of the consignment. The Court held that release had to follow compliance with the statutory payment required from the owner under Section 129(1)(a) of the GST law, and that the revenue could not withhold release merely on a disputed ownership basis. It also clarified that, if the petitioner did not pursue the statutory appeal and the demand attained finality, the revenue remained free to proceed in accordance with law.
Perishable goods detained in transit were ordered to be released to the petitioner because the demand order disclosed no concrete or prima facie material negating the petitioner's ownership of the consignment. The Court held that release had to follow compliance with the statutory payment required from the owner under Section 129(1)(a) of the GST law, and that the revenue could not withhold release merely on a disputed ownership basis. It also clarified that, if the petitioner did not pursue the statutory appeal and the demand attained finality, the revenue remained free to proceed in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
