Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Penalty under Section 125 of the GST Act could not be imposed separately under CGST and SGST beyond the statutory maximum for the same contravention. The High Court held that a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under CGST plus a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST was not justified where the provision prescribed a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000. The original penalty order was therefore unsustainable, and the consequential appellate order also could not stand. Both orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Penalty under Section 125 of the GST Act could not be imposed separately under CGST and SGST beyond the statutory maximum for the same contravention. The High Court held that a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under CGST plus a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST was not justified where the provision prescribed a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000. The original penalty order was therefore unsustainable, and the consequential appellate order also could not stand. Both orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.