TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether overwriting and cancellations in invoice-cum-gate passes, relating to date and time of removal, were covered by Rule 173G(2)(vi); and whether penalty was sustainable in the absence of any intent to evade payment of duty.
Analysis: Rule 173G(2)(vi) was held to deal with cuttings or overwriting in entries other than the date and time of removal in gate passes. The impugned corrections related to date and time of removal, and therefore fell outside that provision. On the question of penalty, the demand of duty had already been dropped, and on that basis no intent to evade payment of duty was found to exist. In these circumstances, the foundation for penalty was held to be absent.
Conclusion: The penalty was held to be unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
