Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
