Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The Rajasthan High Court considered a case involving the detention of goods due to an expired e-way bill, raising concerns about tax evasion. Citing a judgment from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Rajasthan High Court found that the delay in the e-way bill expiration was not due to fraudulent intent or negligence. The court noted that the expired e-way bill resulted from a delay caused by a tyre puncture, absolving the petitioner of any intention to evade tax. Emphasizing that all CGST/SGST taxes were paid, the court deemed the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act unjustified, as the issue was the expired e-way bill, not the absence of one. The court quashed the impugned notice and orders, reducing the penalty to Rs. 10,000 under Section 122 of the CGST Act, as there was no evidence of tax evasion. The petition was partially allowed.
The Rajasthan High Court considered a case involving the detention of goods due to an expired e-way bill, raising concerns about tax evasion. Citing a judgment from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Rajasthan High Court found that the delay in the e-way bill expiration was not due to fraudulent intent or negligence. The court noted that the expired e-way bill resulted from a delay caused by a tyre puncture, absolving the petitioner of any intention to evade tax. Emphasizing that all CGST/SGST taxes were paid, the court deemed the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act unjustified, as the issue was the expired e-way bill, not the absence of one. The court quashed the impugned notice and orders, reducing the penalty to Rs. 10,000 under Section 122 of the CGST Act, as there was no evidence of tax evasion. The petition was partially allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
