Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Challenge to penalty order u/s 129(1) of CGST Act for non-generation of Part-B of E-way bill. Petitioner accepted notice and paid Rs. 11,08,150 penalty voluntarily without objection. Respondent justified in passing penalty order for violating Section 129(1). However, petitioner had no intention of tax evasion, transporting goods from port after customs clearance. Part-A of e-way bill generated, only Part-B not accompanying goods when intercepted. Petitioner liable for penalty equivalent to 200% of tax payable, but since IGST already paid, subjected to 200% of tax paid. Contravention of Rule 138 technical as goods not accompanying Part-B. Penalty u/s 129(1)(a) modified to Rs. 25,000 instead of Rs. 11,08,150 to justify technical violation of not having Part-B. Impugned penalty order modified to Rs. 25,000.
Challenge to penalty order u/s 129(1) of CGST Act for non-generation of Part-B of E-way bill. Petitioner accepted notice and paid Rs. 11,08,150 penalty voluntarily without objection. Respondent justified in passing penalty order for violating Section 129(1). However, petitioner had no intention of tax evasion, transporting goods from port after customs clearance. Part-A of e-way bill generated, only Part-B not accompanying goods when intercepted. Petitioner liable for penalty equivalent to 200% of tax payable, but since IGST already paid, subjected to 200% of tax paid. Contravention of Rule 138 technical as goods not accompanying Part-B. Penalty u/s 129(1)(a) modified to Rs. 25,000 instead of Rs. 11,08,150 to justify technical violation of not having Part-B. Impugned penalty order modified to Rs. 25,000.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
