Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 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 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.