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" ?
The HC allowed the writ petition concerning GST penalty under Section 129. The petitioner had violated prescribed conditions but had voluntarily paid the penalty and successfully exported goods. The court determined that while the petitioner was liable for proceedings under Section 129, a lesser penalty was justified. The HC held that export incentives cannot be denied for technical and venial breaches, citing precedent that such minor violations should not result in denial of legitimate benefits. Despite availability of alternate appellate remedy under Section 107, the court exercised jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary litigation. The respondents were directed to appropriate Rs. 25,000 from the amount already paid by petitioner and allow adjustment of the balance against future tax liability.
The HC allowed the writ petition concerning GST penalty under Section 129. The petitioner had violated prescribed conditions but had voluntarily paid the penalty and successfully exported goods. The court determined that while the petitioner was liable for proceedings under Section 129, a lesser penalty was justified. The HC held that export incentives cannot be denied for technical and venial breaches, citing precedent that such minor violations should not result in denial of legitimate benefits. Despite availability of alternate appellate remedy under Section 107, the court exercised jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary litigation. The respondents were directed to appropriate Rs. 25,000 from the amount already paid by petitioner and allow adjustment of the balance against future tax liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
