Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 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" ?
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.