Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
