Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
