Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
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 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
