Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
