Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Justification of upholding the penalty imposed u/s 51(7)(b) for goods imported from an excise duty-exempt state on the ground of undervaluation based on MRP provisions under the Central Excise Act. The court held that the invoices were issued by the manufacturer in the excise duty-exempt state, leading to a lower purchase price. Merely because the MRP was higher, it cannot be presumed that the invoices were undervalued. The dealer would further sell the goods to distributors, and a lower sale price does not necessarily imply tax evasion. Imposing a penalty based on such presumption would be an exercise of arbitrary power. Additionally, the court ruled that the power to impose penalties u/s 51(7)(b) should be exercised by the assessing authority after determining the actual valuation, not during roadside checking. The questions were answered in favor of the assessee.
Justification of upholding the penalty imposed u/s 51(7)(b) for goods imported from an excise duty-exempt state on the ground of undervaluation based on MRP provisions under the Central Excise Act. The court held that the invoices were issued by the manufacturer in the excise duty-exempt state, leading to a lower purchase price. Merely because the MRP was higher, it cannot be presumed that the invoices were undervalued. The dealer would further sell the goods to distributors, and a lower sale price does not necessarily imply tax evasion. Imposing a penalty based on such presumption would be an exercise of arbitrary power. Additionally, the court ruled that the power to impose penalties u/s 51(7)(b) should be exercised by the assessing authority after determining the actual valuation, not during roadside checking. The questions were answered in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
