Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
