Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
The HC held that the detention of petitioner's goods was unjustified as authorities failed to prove intent to evade tax payment, a mandatory requirement u/s 129(3) of the GST Act. The authorities seized the goods alleging they were mustard oil instead of R.B. Oil mentioned in documents, but did not draw samples or obtain expert reports to substantiate their claim. Without expert evidence contradicting the petitioner's documents, the authorities' view cannot be sustained. The HC concluded the proceedings initiated u/s 129(3) were vitiated due to lack of finding on intent to evade tax payment. The petition was allowed.
The HC held that the detention of petitioner's goods was unjustified as authorities failed to prove intent to evade tax payment, a mandatory requirement u/s 129(3) of the GST Act. The authorities seized the goods alleging they were mustard oil instead of R.B. Oil mentioned in documents, but did not draw samples or obtain expert reports to substantiate their claim. Without expert evidence contradicting the petitioner's documents, the authorities' view cannot be sustained. The HC concluded the proceedings initiated u/s 129(3) were vitiated due to lack of finding on intent to evade tax payment. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
