Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
