Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
A typographical discrepancy between e-way bill particulars and tax invoices, where goods otherwise correspond with the e-way bill and transport documents, is treated as a human error when it provides no benefit and does not indicate tax avoidance. The notes state that such a minor inadvertent mistake, without intent to deceive the Revenue or financial implications, should attract only the minor penalty under clause 5 of the circular dated 14 September 2018, rather than detention and penalty action under Section 129. The Section 129 penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable minor penalty.
A typographical discrepancy between e-way bill particulars and tax invoices, where goods otherwise correspond with the e-way bill and transport documents, is treated as a human error when it provides no benefit and does not indicate tax avoidance. The notes state that such a minor inadvertent mistake, without intent to deceive the Revenue or financial implications, should attract only the minor penalty under clause 5 of the circular dated 14 September 2018, rather than detention and penalty action under Section 129. The Section 129 penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable minor penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.