Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The High Court ruled on a case involving the levy of penalty u/s 129 of the GST Act due to an error in mentioning the vehicle number in the E-way bill during the transit of goods. The court found that the discrepancy in the vehicle registration number did not indicate any intention to evade tax, as it was a genuine sale of goods. The court held that this minor error does not warrant penalty proceedings u/s 129. The court set aside the orders of the detaining authority and the first appellate authority, as there was no evidence of tax evasion beyond the incorrect vehicle number in the E-way bill. The petition was allowed, and the orders were deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
The High Court ruled on a case involving the levy of penalty u/s 129 of the GST Act due to an error in mentioning the vehicle number in the E-way bill during the transit of goods. The court found that the discrepancy in the vehicle registration number did not indicate any intention to evade tax, as it was a genuine sale of goods. The court held that this minor error does not warrant penalty proceedings u/s 129. The court set aside the orders of the detaining authority and the first appellate authority, as there was no evidence of tax evasion beyond the incorrect vehicle number in the E-way bill. The petition was allowed, and the orders were deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
