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 held that mentioning SAP document number instead of tax invoice number in e-way bill during transport from Mathura to Mirzapur was a genuine human error. Physical verification revealed no discrepancies in quality, quantity, or goods description between tax invoice and actual shipment. Authorities failed to establish any intention of tax evasion, which is essential for penalty imposition under Section 129 of GST Act. The technical mismatch alone cannot justify penalty proceedings when substantive compliance is evident. The court found impugned orders unsustainable, emphasizing that mere clerical errors, absent fraudulent intent, do not warrant punitive action. Petition allowed, setting aside tax and penalty orders.
HC held that mentioning SAP document number instead of tax invoice number in e-way bill during transport from Mathura to Mirzapur was a genuine human error. Physical verification revealed no discrepancies in quality, quantity, or goods description between tax invoice and actual shipment. Authorities failed to establish any intention of tax evasion, which is essential for penalty imposition under Section 129 of GST Act. The technical mismatch alone cannot justify penalty proceedings when substantive compliance is evident. The court found impugned orders unsustainable, emphasizing that mere clerical errors, absent fraudulent intent, do not warrant punitive action. Petition allowed, setting aside tax and penalty orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
