Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Time Limitation - issuing a notice after the detention - The High Court noted that the actions of the tax authority did not align with the prescribed timeline outlined in section 129(3) of the CGST Act. As per this section, the proper officer must issue a notice within seven days of detention or seizure and pass an order within seven days from the date of service of such notice. Since both the notice and the subsequent order were issued beyond these time limits, the court found no justification to uphold the demand raised. - While acknowledging the discrepancy in the vehicle number recorded in the e-way bills, the court observed that it was a minor error, possibly a bonafide mistake. The court indicated that such discrepancies should not lead to severe penalties under section 129 of the CGST Act.
Time Limitation - issuing a notice after the detention - The High Court noted that the actions of the tax authority did not align with the prescribed timeline outlined in section 129(3) of the CGST Act. As per this section, the proper officer must issue a notice within seven days of detention or seizure and pass an order within seven days from the date of service of such notice. Since both the notice and the subsequent order were issued beyond these time limits, the court found no justification to uphold the demand raised. - While acknowledging the discrepancy in the vehicle number recorded in the e-way bills, the court observed that it was a minor error, possibly a bonafide mistake. The court indicated that such discrepancies should not lead to severe penalties under section 129 of the CGST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
