Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Section 125 of the CGST framework was construed as prescribing a single maximum general penalty of Rs. 25,000, so the penalty could not be split into separate CGST and SGST penalties to exceed that statutory cap. The High Court therefore held that imposing Rs. 25,000 under CGST and a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST under the same provision was unjustified. The penalty order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with all available grounds left open to the petitioner.
Section 125 of the CGST framework was construed as prescribing a single maximum general penalty of Rs. 25,000, so the penalty could not be split into separate CGST and SGST penalties to exceed that statutory cap. The High Court therefore held that imposing Rs. 25,000 under CGST and a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST under the same provision was unjustified. The penalty order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with all available grounds left open to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
