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...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
