Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under section 129(3) of the GST Act for non-filing of Part-B of the e-way bill, finding no intent to evade tax. The petitioner demonstrated that the omission was due to a technical glitch, a fact undisputed in the record. The Court relied on precedents affirming that mere non-filing of the e-way bill does not attract penalty absent a tax evasion intent. As no authority below recorded any finding of willful tax evasion, the penalty was unwarranted. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order imposing the penalty was quashed.
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under section 129(3) of the GST Act for non-filing of Part-B of the e-way bill, finding no intent to evade tax. The petitioner demonstrated that the omission was due to a technical glitch, a fact undisputed in the record. The Court relied on precedents affirming that mere non-filing of the e-way bill does not attract penalty absent a tax evasion intent. As no authority below recorded any finding of willful tax evasion, the penalty was unwarranted. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order imposing the penalty was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
