Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
