Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
Fraud classification show-cause notices founded on inconclusive forensic audit material cannot sustain action, permitting fresh proceedings on conclus...
Page of 4888
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 97750 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that the levy of tax and penalty on detained goods was unjustified as there was no intention to avoid tax payment. The petitioner accompanied the goods with relevant documents like tax invoice, goods receipt, and e-way bills mentioning Ghaziabad as the dispatch location. The petitioner's reply stated the purchase was from a Ghaziabad dealer, which was not denied. The state failed to prove the goods were purchased from a non-bonafide dealer. Since the petitioner was present before the authority, proceedings u/s 129(1)(b) of the Act were inappropriate when the consignor claimed ownership with tax invoice and e-way bill. The impugned orders were quashed as unsustainable in law.
The High Court held that the levy of tax and penalty on detained goods was unjustified as there was no intention to avoid tax payment. The petitioner accompanied the goods with relevant documents like tax invoice, goods receipt, and e-way bills mentioning Ghaziabad as the dispatch location. The petitioner's reply stated the purchase was from a Ghaziabad dealer, which was not denied. The state failed to prove the goods were purchased from a non-bonafide dealer. Since the petitioner was present before the authority, proceedings u/s 129(1)(b) of the Act were inappropriate when the consignor claimed ownership with tax invoice and e-way bill. The impugned orders were quashed as unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
