Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
