Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
The case involved a challenge to a penalty imposed u/s 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Acts. The court held that without proof of intent to evade tax, such penalties lack legal basis. The petitioner had presented all documents during seizure, except one, which was later provided. The court found no factual support for the alleged tax evasion intent. The order dated July 20, 2024, was quashed, directing release of the vehicle and goods within two weeks. The High Court disposed of the petition.
The case involved a challenge to a penalty imposed u/s 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Acts. The court held that without proof of intent to evade tax, such penalties lack legal basis. The petitioner had presented all documents during seizure, except one, which was later provided. The court found no factual support for the alleged tax evasion intent. The order dated July 20, 2024, was quashed, directing release of the vehicle and goods within two weeks. The High Court disposed of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
