TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Stock Transfer Invoice Discrepancy Leads to Penalty Quashed: No Tax Liability Found in Routine Business Transaction</h1> <h3>M/s Goverdhan Oil Mill Versus Additional Commissioner And Another</h3> M/s Goverdhan Oil Mill Versus Additional Commissioner And Another - 2024:AHC:63409 The Allahabad High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashed the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged orders dated June 28, 2023 and February 8, 2024, contending that the sole discrepancy concerned the HSN code in the tax invoice related to a stock transfer, which was undisputed by authorities. Relying on precedents from coordinate benches (M/s Vacmet India Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner and M/s Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.), the Court held that 'in the case of stock transfer, there is no liability of any payment of tax' and thus 'there can be no intention to evade tax whatsoever.' The Court found the penalty under Section 129(3) to be 'without any basis in law' and accordingly set aside the impugned orders, allowing the writ petition and directing refund of any deposited penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
