Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The Calcutta High Court considered the maintainability of a petition challenging the penalty imposed u/s 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court found that the E-way bill and delivery challan did not comply with Rule 55 of the CGST Rules and the WBGST Rules, raising suspicions of concealment. The petitioner failed to provide necessary documents to clarify the situation, leading to doubts about their bona fides. The court held that the Revenue had jurisdiction to assess tax and compute penalties based on the value of the goods. The order was deemed to be reasoned and passed after giving the petitioner a fresh hearing. Despite the availability of alternative remedies, the court allowed the petition challenging jurisdiction. The court emphasized the responsibility of registered persons to comply with legal requirements and dismissed the writ petition.
The Calcutta High Court considered the maintainability of a petition challenging the penalty imposed u/s 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court found that the E-way bill and delivery challan did not comply with Rule 55 of the CGST Rules and the WBGST Rules, raising suspicions of concealment. The petitioner failed to provide necessary documents to clarify the situation, leading to doubts about their bona fides. The court held that the Revenue had jurisdiction to assess tax and compute penalties based on the value of the goods. The order was deemed to be reasoned and passed after giving the petitioner a fresh hearing. Despite the availability of alternative remedies, the court allowed the petition challenging jurisdiction. The court emphasized the responsibility of registered persons to comply with legal requirements and dismissed the writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
