Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1021 to 1040 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Levy of penalty @200% - e-way bill which was generated by the appellant had expired and at the time when the vehicle was intercepted four days had lapsed - The High Court acknowledged that penalties should not be imposed without considering mens rea. While the statute allows for a penalty of 200%, it does not absolve authorities from considering circumstances and intentions. Despite the expiration of the e-way bill, the Court found that the appellant's failure to extend the validity was a crucial factor. However, it noted that the penalty was calculated on a higher value than the invoice, indicating arbitrariness on the part of the authorities. Ultimately, the Court partially allowed the appeal, imposing a reduced penalty but refrained from completely exonerating the appellant.
Levy of penalty @200% - e-way bill which was generated by the appellant had expired and at the time when the vehicle was intercepted four days had lapsed - The High Court acknowledged that penalties should not be imposed without considering mens rea. While the statute allows for a penalty of 200%, it does not absolve authorities from considering circumstances and intentions. Despite the expiration of the e-way bill, the Court found that the appellant's failure to extend the validity was a crucial factor. However, it noted that the penalty was calculated on a higher value than the invoice, indicating arbitrariness on the part of the authorities. Ultimately, the Court partially allowed the appeal, imposing a reduced penalty but refrained from completely exonerating the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.