Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
