Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
