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 issues raised by the petitioner regarding the reasons for transporting goods in a different vehicle and the expiry of the e-way bill should have been considered by the competent authorities before imposing a penalty u/s 129 of the CGST/SGST Acts. If there was no attempt to evade tax and the discrepancies were beyond the petitioner's control, this should have been considered by the original and Appellate Authorities. Although the petitioner may be justified in challenging the Appellate Authority's order due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal u/s 112, the High Court may not entertain the challenge in a writ petition under Article 226 since adjudication involves disputed questions of fact. The appeal filed by the petitioner is restored to the Appellate Authority, who shall pass fresh orders after affording a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order is quashed.
The High Court held that the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the reasons for transporting goods in a different vehicle and the expiry of the e-way bill should have been considered by the competent authorities before imposing a penalty u/s 129 of the CGST/SGST Acts. If there was no attempt to evade tax and the discrepancies were beyond the petitioner's control, this should have been considered by the original and Appellate Authorities. Although the petitioner may be justified in challenging the Appellate Authority's order due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal u/s 112, the High Court may not entertain the challenge in a writ petition under Article 226 since adjudication involves disputed questions of fact. The appeal filed by the petitioner is restored to the Appellate Authority, who shall pass fresh orders after affording a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order is quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
