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...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
