Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC set aside penalty orders under GST Act Section 129(1) and allowed refund application. The appellate authority's dismissal was deemed unjustified as there was no clear tax evasion intent. While the e-way bill showed dispatch from Durgapur without full supplier details, the court found this omission insufficient to establish evasion, noting the goods moved in the same vehicle (WB 41D 1508) as per both e-way bill and tax invoice. The court emphasized that acceptance of dispatch details in the e-way bill portal's Part-A submission indicated compliance, and mere incomplete supplier information didn't constitute tax evasion intent. The court directed authorities to process refund applications as per law.
HC set aside penalty orders under GST Act Section 129(1) and allowed refund application. The appellate authority's dismissal was deemed unjustified as there was no clear tax evasion intent. While the e-way bill showed dispatch from Durgapur without full supplier details, the court found this omission insufficient to establish evasion, noting the goods moved in the same vehicle (WB 41D 1508) as per both e-way bill and tax invoice. The court emphasized that acceptance of dispatch details in the e-way bill portal's Part-A submission indicated compliance, and mere incomplete supplier information didn't constitute tax evasion intent. The court directed authorities to process refund applications as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
