Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
HC held that under West Bengal GST Rules, 2017, a physical tax invoice is mandatory during goods transportation. While electronic display was attempted, it did not constitute statutory compliance with Rule 138A(1)(a). The court noted no evidence of tax evasion intent and referenced prior precedent in Ashok Sharma case. Critically, the revenue authority did not dispute tax invoice authenticity or allege tax payment default. Consequently, the court set aside the penalty order, finding Section 129 invocation unjustified without demonstrable tax evasion intention. The appellate authority's order affirming the original penalty was quashed, and the petitioner was deemed entitled to penalty refund.
HC held that under West Bengal GST Rules, 2017, a physical tax invoice is mandatory during goods transportation. While electronic display was attempted, it did not constitute statutory compliance with Rule 138A(1)(a). The court noted no evidence of tax evasion intent and referenced prior precedent in Ashok Sharma case. Critically, the revenue authority did not dispute tax invoice authenticity or allege tax payment default. Consequently, the court set aside the penalty order, finding Section 129 invocation unjustified without demonstrable tax evasion intention. The appellate authority's order affirming the original penalty was quashed, and the petitioner was deemed entitled to penalty refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
