Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Detention of goods on onward journey - detention on ground goods dispatched to different place than mentioned in documents - levy of penalty u/s 129 of UPGST Act - existence of mens rea or not - Held: It is undisputed purchaser was of Chandpur, but goods consigned to M/s Udit Engineers, Aligarh. When goods on onward journey, intercepted as e-way bill mentioned delivery place as Chandpur instead of Aligarh. This error can occur due to human error while filling form/e-way bill. No finding recorded by authorities below of mens rea for evading tax payment. State did not plead intention to evade tax. Court in Nancy Trading Company held error in not generating e-tax invoice before goods movement is human error, and in absence of specific finding regarding mens rea for tax evasion, proceedings u/s 129(3) should not have been initiated. Impugned orders cannot be sustained - petition allowed.
Detention of goods on onward journey - detention on ground goods dispatched to different place than mentioned in documents - levy of penalty u/s 129 of UPGST Act - existence of mens rea or not - Held: It is undisputed purchaser was of Chandpur, but goods consigned to M/s Udit Engineers, Aligarh. When goods on onward journey, intercepted as e-way bill mentioned delivery place as Chandpur instead of Aligarh. This error can occur due to human error while filling form/e-way bill. No finding recorded by authorities below of mens rea for evading tax payment. State did not plead intention to evade tax. Court in Nancy Trading Company held error in not generating e-tax invoice before goods movement is human error, and in absence of specific finding regarding mens rea for tax evasion, proceedings u/s 129(3) should not have been initiated. Impugned orders cannot be sustained - petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.