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 ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The HC dismissed a challenge to detention and penalty order, affirming that carrying an e-way bill is mandatory for goods movement after the 14th Amendment to UP GST Rules effective April 1, 2018. The Court relied on precedents establishing that absence of an e-way bill creates a rebuttable presumption of tax evasion. In this case, the petitioner generated the e-way bill three hours after interception, was not conducting business at the registered address, had registration cancelled suo moto, and misrepresented goods (declaring items taxable at 5% when they were actually taxable at 18%). These facts demonstrated clear intent to evade tax, justifying the detention and penalty.
The HC dismissed a challenge to detention and penalty order, affirming that carrying an e-way bill is mandatory for goods movement after the 14th Amendment to UP GST Rules effective April 1, 2018. The Court relied on precedents establishing that absence of an e-way bill creates a rebuttable presumption of tax evasion. In this case, the petitioner generated the e-way bill three hours after interception, was not conducting business at the registered address, had registration cancelled suo moto, and misrepresented goods (declaring items taxable at 5% when they were actually taxable at 18%). These facts demonstrated clear intent to evade tax, justifying the detention and penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.