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...
HC adjudicated a tax seizure case involving inter-unit transportation of goods. The court determined that no tax evasion occurred during the transfer of a compactor machine from Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh. Despite initial interception due to missing documentation, the subsequent production of delivery challan and e-way bill demonstrated compliance. The court emphasized that stock transfers between organizational units without a sales transaction do not attract GST liability. Critically, the respondent authority failed to establish any deliberate intent to circumvent tax regulations. Relying on precedential reasoning, the HC ruled that procedural technicalities did not warrant punitive action. The petition was ultimately allowed, nullifying the seizure proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
HC adjudicated a tax seizure case involving inter-unit transportation of goods. The court determined that no tax evasion occurred during the transfer of a compactor machine from Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh. Despite initial interception due to missing documentation, the subsequent production of delivery challan and e-way bill demonstrated compliance. The court emphasized that stock transfers between organizational units without a sales transaction do not attract GST liability. Critically, the respondent authority failed to establish any deliberate intent to circumvent tax regulations. Relying on precedential reasoning, the HC ruled that procedural technicalities did not warrant punitive action. The petition was ultimately allowed, nullifying the seizure proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
