Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC quashed detention order and penalty imposed due to minor E-way bill discrepancy where goods were transported for exhibition display. Genuine delivery challans under Section 55(1) were issued for both dispatch and return, with only technical error in listing dispatch location as Ghaziabad instead of New Delhi. No evidence of tax evasion intent was established by authorities. Court found proceedings unjustified where goods were accompanied by legitimate documentation, despite technical discrepancy. Following precedent requiring proof of tax evasion intent for penalty imposition, and recognizing substantial compliance with documentation requirements, petition was allowed and proceedings invalidated.
HC quashed detention order and penalty imposed due to minor E-way bill discrepancy where goods were transported for exhibition display. Genuine delivery challans under Section 55(1) were issued for both dispatch and return, with only technical error in listing dispatch location as Ghaziabad instead of New Delhi. No evidence of tax evasion intent was established by authorities. Court found proceedings unjustified where goods were accompanied by legitimate documentation, despite technical discrepancy. Following precedent requiring proof of tax evasion intent for penalty imposition, and recognizing substantial compliance with documentation requirements, petition was allowed and proceedings invalidated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.