Road restoration charges constitute taxable services when requested for commercial pipeline activity, requiring reverse-charge GST from the business r...
Interest on delayed release of requisitioned cash includes statutory pre-assessment interest and restitutionary compensation for unlawful post-assessm...
Incomplete inventory records justify rejecting accounts, while profit estimation requires relevant comparable material and interest falls under other ...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional alignment; delayed associated-enterprise receivables need separate LIBOR-based benchmarking, while ...
Extended reassessment limitation in search cases requires asset-linked escaped income, invalidating additions based only on unexplained money or expen...
Enhanced tolerance band under section 43CA applies retrospectively, deleting qualifying deemed-sale additions while disputed stamp valuation requires ...
Petitioner challenged order passed u/s 129(3) of Goods and...
E-way Bill: Typographical error not indicative of tax evasion intent. Active GSTIN, residential address not adverse. Penalty quashed for lack of evidence.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Petitioner challenged order passed u/s 129(3) of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for alleged tax evasion due to typographical error in date on E-way Bill and Tax Invoice. Court held typographical error was bona fide, not indicative of mens rea to evade tax, essential for imposing penalty. Selling dealer had active GSTIN, no adverse inference permissible merely because office address was residential. Impugned order set aside based on conjectures without cogent evidence of tax evasion. Petition allowed.
Petitioner challenged order passed u/s 129(3) of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for alleged tax evasion due to typographical error in date on E-way Bill and Tax Invoice. Court held typographical error was bona fide, not indicative of mens rea to evade tax, essential for imposing penalty. Selling dealer had active GSTIN, no adverse inference permissible merely because office address was residential. Impugned order set aside based on conjectures without cogent evidence of tax evasion. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4910 
