Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
In the present case, the authorities levied penalty u/s 129(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act. However, the court observed that the authorities neither challenged the invoice nor the e-way bill produced by the petitioner, nor questioned the purchase of areca nuts from a third party, which were being supplied by the petitioner to the consignee. The petitioner relied on Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST, which states that if an invoice or specified document accompanies the consignment, either the consignor or consignee should be deemed the owner. The court also relied on a Division Bench judgment, which held that the Department is bound by the aforesaid circular, and if the invoice mentions the consignor's name, the consignor shall be deemed the owner. Consequently, the court quashed the order dated November 6, 2024, as illegal and unjustified, and directed the authorities to pass an order u/s 129(1)(a) and release the goods and vehicle upon payment of the penalty in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of.
In the present case, the authorities levied penalty u/s 129(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act. However, the court observed that the authorities neither challenged the invoice nor the e-way bill produced by the petitioner, nor questioned the purchase of areca nuts from a third party, which were being supplied by the petitioner to the consignee. The petitioner relied on Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST, which states that if an invoice or specified document accompanies the consignment, either the consignor or consignee should be deemed the owner. The court also relied on a Division Bench judgment, which held that the Department is bound by the aforesaid circular, and if the invoice mentions the consignor's name, the consignor shall be deemed the owner. Consequently, the court quashed the order dated November 6, 2024, as illegal and unjustified, and directed the authorities to pass an order u/s 129(1)(a) and release the goods and vehicle upon payment of the penalty in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
