Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 
