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...
Intent to evade tax or not - Challenged the physical inspection and verification report - Penalty - detention on the ground that address of the consigner not found during the inspection carried out at his place of business - The High court emphasized the necessity of proving an intent to evade tax for invoking proceedings under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. - The court acknowledged that the respondent did not dispute the fact that taxes had been duly paid by the seller, strengthening the petitioner's argument against tax evasion. - The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside all impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent. It directed the refund of the penalty amount to the petitioner within four weeks.
Intent to evade tax or not - Challenged the physical inspection and verification report - Penalty - detention on the ground that address of the consigner not found during the inspection carried out at his place of business - The High court emphasized the necessity of proving an intent to evade tax for invoking proceedings under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. - The court acknowledged that the respondent did not dispute the fact that taxes had been duly paid by the seller, strengthening the petitioner's argument against tax evasion. - The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside all impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent. It directed the refund of the penalty amount to the petitioner within four weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
