Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
The High Court reviewed the validity of the show cause notice (SCN) and assessment order u/s 129 of the CGST Act. The issue centered on penalty imposition due to non-updation of the e-way bill resulting from goods transfer to another vehicle. The court found no evidence of intent to contravene the Act or evade tax. Consequently, a general penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the petitioner u/s 125 of the CGST Act. The impugned notice and order were set aside, with a direction for the respondents to refund the tax after deducting the penalty. The court deemed it just to levy the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000, ultimately allowing the petition.
The High Court reviewed the validity of the show cause notice (SCN) and assessment order u/s 129 of the CGST Act. The issue centered on penalty imposition due to non-updation of the e-way bill resulting from goods transfer to another vehicle. The court found no evidence of intent to contravene the Act or evade tax. Consequently, a general penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the petitioner u/s 125 of the CGST Act. The impugned notice and order were set aside, with a direction for the respondents to refund the tax after deducting the penalty. The court deemed it just to levy the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000, ultimately allowing the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
