Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
