Gauhati High Court
For assessee
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
5 rulings found
Gauhati High Court
Where authorities seized cash, along with other items, during search under section 67 but cash did not fall within permissible articles for seizure, such action was illegal and, although cash was refunded before adjudication, petitioner was entitled to interest for period of illegal withholding and respondent authorities were required to compute and pay such interest. GST: Where search under section 67 resulted in seizure of mobile phones, pen drives and a bank card, and since SCN was already issued, continued retention of seized goods was unwarranted and Investigating Officer was required to arrange immediate release of said items to petitioner
Gauhati High Court
Power conferred under section 67(4) can only be exercised upon initiation of search proceedings and so long search proceedings are continuing, keeping premises of petitioner sealed for last four months was illegal and against mandate of section 67(4), as power under Section 67(4) ceases to exist once search proceedings culminated with seizure of goods, documents, books or things
Madras High Court
Where search authorization issued in respect of petitioner partnership firm under Section 67(2) lacked DIN with only a generic assertion of technical difficulty and no contemporaneous record, and DIN was neither timely generated nor communicated to noticee, mandatory requirements of DIN display, contemporaneous recording of exception, regularization, and sharing with noticee were breached, rendering authorization non-compliant; authorities to initiate fresh proceeding
Kerala High Court
Where demand under section 74 and confiscation proceedings under section 130 were founded on witness statements and request for cross examination was rejected on irrelevant grounds, denial of effective opportunity vitiated adjudication and matter was liable to be remanded for fresh proceedings
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Where applicant was arrested for alleged manufacture and misclassification of pan masala using scented supari and lime without registration, but only raw materials for scented supari were seized and machines were sealed, since evidence was documentary or electronic which was already secured and custodial interrogation was not essential, bail was to be granted as maximum punishment was five years and triple test governing grant of bail was duly satisfied