Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting goods without revalidating e-way bill. However, once plausible explanation provided by transporter/assessee and no attempt to evade tax found, proceedings should not culminate in maximum penalty u/s 129. Officer should have imposed penalty u/s 122(1)(xiv) only. Provisions of Section 129 do not authorize imposition of tax/penalty u/s 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) in cases of minor discrepancies; such penalty can be imposed only for violations leading to tax evasion, intent to evade tax, or repeated violations. In other cases, penalties u/ss 122 and 126 to be imposed. In present case, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 122(1)(xiv) can be imposed. On payment of penalty, bank guarantee to be released.
Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting goods without revalidating e-way bill. However, once plausible explanation provided by transporter/assessee and no attempt to evade tax found, proceedings should not culminate in maximum penalty u/s 129. Officer should have imposed penalty u/s 122(1)(xiv) only. Provisions of Section 129 do not authorize imposition of tax/penalty u/s 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) in cases of minor discrepancies; such penalty can be imposed only for violations leading to tax evasion, intent to evade tax, or repeated violations. In other cases, penalties u/ss 122 and 126 to be imposed. In present case, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 122(1)(xiv) can be imposed. On payment of penalty, bank guarantee to be released.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
