Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 95872 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 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
