Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC upheld penalty u/s 129(3) of WB GST Act 2017 due to deliberate discrepancies in transportation documents. The E-way bill listed an unregistered person (URP) as consignor from Arunachal Pradesh, while delivery challan showed a GST-registered entity as consignor. This mismatch was deemed intentional to conceal the actual recipient's identity and evade GST on rental/lease services of JCB machinery. Court found sufficient evidence of tax evasion intent, noting that using URP details in E-way bill while actual service recipient was GST-registered constituted willful attempt to evade tax liability. Appeal dismissed, affirming 200% penalty of tax payable.
HC upheld penalty u/s 129(3) of WB GST Act 2017 due to deliberate discrepancies in transportation documents. The E-way bill listed an unregistered person (URP) as consignor from Arunachal Pradesh, while delivery challan showed a GST-registered entity as consignor. This mismatch was deemed intentional to conceal the actual recipient's identity and evade GST on rental/lease services of JCB machinery. Court found sufficient evidence of tax evasion intent, noting that using URP details in E-way bill while actual service recipient was GST-registered constituted willful attempt to evade tax liability. Appeal dismissed, affirming 200% penalty of tax payable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
