Initiation of penal provisions after expiry of 5 years - The ...

High Court Quashes Penalty Proceedings Initiated After Five Years, Deems Them Unreasonable Under Established Timeframe.

December 22, 2014

Case Laws Central Excise HC

Initiation of penal provisions after expiry of 5 years - The period of five years has been held to be reasonable period for initiating penalty proceedings - proceedings beyond that were rightly quashed - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Initiation of penal provisions after expiry of 5 years - The ...

High Court Quashes Penalty Proceedings Initiated After Five Years, Deems Them Unreasonable Under Established Timeframe.

December 22, 2014

Case Laws Central Excise HC

You may also like:

Penalty proceedings under CGST Act cannot be initiated after State GST Authorities have initiated proceedings on the same subject matter. Once proceedings are initiated...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Validity of notice - It is a well settled proposition of law that penalty cannot be initiated for the limb, which is different from the limb for...

Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271C and the limitation period for levying such penalty. The key points are: The penalty proceedings were initiated on the date of...

The High Court addressed the issue of parallel proceedings initiated by both State and Central GST Authorities against the petitioner for the same assessment years. For...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for under reporting income - defective notice - The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the AO did not apply his mind...

Proceedings initiated u/s 144C - legality of the order by framing the so-called draft assessment order - while framing the said draft assessment order, the AO not only...

The key points are regarding the penalty imposed u/s 271D read with Section 269SS, and the issue of whether the penalty orders were time-barred. The Assessing Officer...

Exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction after seven years - the bar of limitation, to initiate revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 (1) of the VAT Act, 2005 within five...

Unreasonable delay in completion of reassessment - It is thus clear that even if the notice was issued within the prescribed period of limitation,...

The court held that Section 6(2)(b) of the Act treats the empowered officers under the SGST/UGST Act at the central level to be at par and does not prescribe for...

Revision u/s 263 - penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) - The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the...

HC held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were unwarranted. The AO had previously accepted the full partition of the HUF during assessment under Section...

How long should a Bank keep records - Violation of the provisions of the FERA - Undisputedly, no such order has been placed on record which required the...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to be deleted. The Assessing Officer...

The High Court held that once a proper officer initiates proceedings on a subject matter under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) or the Haryana...

Quick Updates: