Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
HC ruled that the petitioner, not being a 'supplier' under GST Act Section 2(105), was improperly penalized Rs.7,36,490/- for failing to generate Part-B of E-Way Bill during goods transportation for job work. The court found the penalty disproportionate, considering the petitioner had generated Part-A of E-Way Bill and provided a valid Delivery Challan. The impugned order was modified, reducing the penalty to Rs.25,000/- and directing respondents to refund the excess amount through Electronic Cash or Credit Ledger, thereby partly allowing the petition and rectifying the unjustified punitive action.
HC ruled that the petitioner, not being a 'supplier' under GST Act Section 2(105), was improperly penalized Rs.7,36,490/- for failing to generate Part-B of E-Way Bill during goods transportation for job work. The court found the penalty disproportionate, considering the petitioner had generated Part-A of E-Way Bill and provided a valid Delivery Challan. The impugned order was modified, reducing the penalty to Rs.25,000/- and directing respondents to refund the excess amount through Electronic Cash or Credit Ledger, thereby partly allowing the petition and rectifying the unjustified punitive action.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
