Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
The HC ruled that when a taxpayer produces tax invoices and e-way bills with minor typographical errors (such as incorrect vehicle number HR-46C-4623 instead of HR-58C-4623), goods should be released under Section 129(1)(a) rather than 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. Following precedent established in Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. & others and the circular dated 31.12.2018, the Court held that when documents establish ownership despite minor errors, penalties under Section 129(1)(b) are inappropriate. The authorities were directed to expedite the release of goods under Section 129(1)(a). Petition allowed.
The HC ruled that when a taxpayer produces tax invoices and e-way bills with minor typographical errors (such as incorrect vehicle number HR-46C-4623 instead of HR-58C-4623), goods should be released under Section 129(1)(a) rather than 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. Following precedent established in Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. & others and the circular dated 31.12.2018, the Court held that when documents establish ownership despite minor errors, penalties under Section 129(1)(b) are inappropriate. The authorities were directed to expedite the release of goods under Section 129(1)(a). Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.