Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Abetment under Section 112(a) failed because abetment requires an actual committer and an abettor, and the record did not establish who the importer was or that either appellant was the importer. The Tribunal also noted that the case rested mainly on an uncorroborated statement retracted at the earliest opportunity, while a key investigative lead from the phone number in the shipping documents was not pursued; the penalty under Section 112(a) was set aside. Section 114AA was confined to fraudulent exports made only on paper without any physical export, so it did not apply to imports; the penalty under that provision was also set aside.
Abetment under Section 112(a) failed because abetment requires an actual committer and an abettor, and the record did not establish who the importer was or that either appellant was the importer. The Tribunal also noted that the case rested mainly on an uncorroborated statement retracted at the earliest opportunity, while a key investigative lead from the phone number in the shipping documents was not pursued; the penalty under Section 112(a) was set aside. Section 114AA was confined to fraudulent exports made only on paper without any physical export, so it did not apply to imports; the penalty under that provision was also set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
