Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 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 held that the levy of IGST and penalty on the petitioner for incorrectly mentioning the place of loading in the e-way bill was unjustified. The goods were seized solely based on a technical error regarding the shipment location, without any dispute over the quantity or quality of goods. Relying on precedent, the court ruled that a mere technical discrepancy in the e-way bill does not warrant seizure or penalty imposition. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned orders dated 07.06.2023 and 26.10.2024 passed by the respondents, thereby allowing the petition and setting aside the tax and penalty proceedings against the petitioner.
The HC held that the levy of IGST and penalty on the petitioner for incorrectly mentioning the place of loading in the e-way bill was unjustified. The goods were seized solely based on a technical error regarding the shipment location, without any dispute over the quantity or quality of goods. Relying on precedent, the court ruled that a mere technical discrepancy in the e-way bill does not warrant seizure or penalty imposition. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned orders dated 07.06.2023 and 26.10.2024 passed by the respondents, thereby allowing the petition and setting aside the tax and penalty proceedings against the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
