The Allahabad High Court held that persons illegally detained beyond permissible limits are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per day. The Court directed that such compensation be recovered from the salaries of erring officials after disciplinary proceedings.
The article argues that the daily backup requirement under Rule 46(8) applies only to books maintained in electronic mode, not merely because accounting software is used on local computers.
The Court held that absence of lorry receipts or weighment slips, by itself, cannot justify denial of Input Tax Credit when invoices, supplier returns, and tax payments establish the genuineness of supplies.
Judicial authorities have held that Foreign Tax Credit is a substantive right and cannot be denied merely due to procedural delays in filing Form No. 67. Taxpayers must nevertheless strive for timely compliance and proper documentation.
The article explains how routing Indian funds through offshore structures and reinvesting them into India may violate FEMA and attract money laundering investigations under PMLA. It highlights the regulatory consequences of disguising domestic funds as foreign investment.
The Bombay High Court held that GST recovery proceedings against a legal heir cannot be initiated without first determining liability under Section 93. The ruling emphasizes that Section 79 recovery powers require an established liability supported by due process.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that recovery proceedings under Section 79 can be initiated against banks without prior notice to the dealer once an assessment order has attained finality. The decision clarifies that Section 79 is a recovery provision that operates after tax liability is conclusively determined.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that ITC for FY 2018-19 cannot be denied merely because import and SEZ transactions were absent from GSTR-2A. The Court held that GSTR-2A did not capture such data during the relevant period, making the demand unsustainable.
The Supreme Court acknowledged homemakers as nation builders and held that their unpaid domestic labour has immense economic value. The ruling introduces a separate compensation framework recognising the loss suffered by families.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings could not be initiated on the issue of broken period interest when the legal position had already been settled by binding precedents. The Court quashed the notices issued under Sections 148A and 148.
