Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved the determination of penalty u/s 69(1)(k) of the J&K Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the issuance of 35 improper invoices on the same day. The High Court held that each tax invoice, if found to be in default, attracts a penalty of ten times the tax payable on that invoice or Rs. 10,000, whichever is higher. The court clarified that the penalty is meant to deter VAT dealers from under-assessing or evading tax liabilities. It emphasized that the penalty is to be applied to each individual tax invoice, not based on the total number of invoices generated in a day. The court rejected the notion of penalizing based on the accumulation of invoices for a specific day. Each default on a tax invoice is to be penalized independently as per the provisions of the VAT Act.
The case involved the determination of penalty u/s 69(1)(k) of the J&K Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the issuance of 35 improper invoices on the same day. The High Court held that each tax invoice, if found to be in default, attracts a penalty of ten times the tax payable on that invoice or Rs. 10,000, whichever is higher. The court clarified that the penalty is meant to deter VAT dealers from under-assessing or evading tax liabilities. It emphasized that the penalty is to be applied to each individual tax invoice, not based on the total number of invoices generated in a day. The court rejected the notion of penalizing based on the accumulation of invoices for a specific day. Each default on a tax invoice is to be penalized independently as per the provisions of the VAT Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
