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 set aside penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, ruling that mens rea is sine qua non for penalty imposition. The petitioner generated e-way bill after detention, with tax already paid, demonstrating no intent to evade tax. Court held that authorities cannot presume tax evasion based solely on procedural lapses such as expired e-way bills, particularly when valid reasons exist. The judgment emphasized that penalty proceedings require proof of intentional tax evasion, not mere technical violations. Respondent authorities failed to establish requisite intent or provide adequate reasoning for penalty imposition. Petition allowed, impugned order quashed for lacking foundational grounds regarding evasion intent.
HC set aside penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, ruling that mens rea is sine qua non for penalty imposition. The petitioner generated e-way bill after detention, with tax already paid, demonstrating no intent to evade tax. Court held that authorities cannot presume tax evasion based solely on procedural lapses such as expired e-way bills, particularly when valid reasons exist. The judgment emphasized that penalty proceedings require proof of intentional tax evasion, not mere technical violations. Respondent authorities failed to establish requisite intent or provide adequate reasoning for penalty imposition. Petition allowed, impugned order quashed for lacking foundational grounds regarding evasion intent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
