Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
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.