Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 
