Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
