Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The petitioner brought a consignment of jewelry from Mumbai to Cochin without a valid Form 8FA declaration as required under the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules. The Commercial Tax Authorities assumed the petitioner intended to evade tax by clandestinely selling the consignment within Kerala. However, it was admitted that the entire consignment was taken back to Mumbai via Coimbatore without any sale within Kerala. Although the authorities were initially justified in presuming tax evasion, the subsequent events showed no actual sale or tax evasion occurred within Kerala. Therefore, a lenient view regarding the imposition of penalty on the petitioner is warranted.
The petitioner brought a consignment of jewelry from Mumbai to Cochin without a valid Form 8FA declaration as required under the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules. The Commercial Tax Authorities assumed the petitioner intended to evade tax by clandestinely selling the consignment within Kerala. However, it was admitted that the entire consignment was taken back to Mumbai via Coimbatore without any sale within Kerala. Although the authorities were initially justified in presuming tax evasion, the subsequent events showed no actual sale or tax evasion occurred within Kerala. Therefore, a lenient view regarding the imposition of penalty on the petitioner is warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.