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" ?
Seizure order for detention of goods due to absence of State E-way Bill was challenged. The Court held that at the time of interception, the Central E-way Bill under GST Act was available, and only the E-way Bill under UP GST Act was not present, which was later produced before passing the penalty order. The issue was covered by previous Division Bench judgments, which held that from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the requirement of E-way Bill under UP GST Act was not enforceable. Since the goods were detained and seized on 23.3.2018 solely for the absence of the E-way Bill under UP GST Act, and the Central E-way Bill was accompanying the goods, the detention order, seizure order, and penalty were unjustified. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 24.3.2018 and 1.10.2020 were quashed by the High Court, and the petition was allowed.
Seizure order for detention of goods due to absence of State E-way Bill was challenged. The Court held that at the time of interception, the Central E-way Bill under GST Act was available, and only the E-way Bill under UP GST Act was not present, which was later produced before passing the penalty order. The issue was covered by previous Division Bench judgments, which held that from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the requirement of E-way Bill under UP GST Act was not enforceable. Since the goods were detained and seized on 23.3.2018 solely for the absence of the E-way Bill under UP GST Act, and the Central E-way Bill was accompanying the goods, the detention order, seizure order, and penalty were unjustified. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 24.3.2018 and 1.10.2020 were quashed by the High Court, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
