Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
