Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
The HC quashed the detention and penalty orders under section 129 of the GST Act due to the absence of intent to evade tax. Although the e-way bill omitted the transporter's name, the truck number and other details were provided, and the goods were transported within Delhi as per the tax invoice and e-way bill. The Court found no evidence of tax evasion or misrepresentation, noting the appellant's unchallenged claim that the goods were transported as a full truckload to its warehouse. Consequently, the penalty proceedings lacked justification. Both the original and appellate orders impugned were set aside, and the petition was allowed.
The HC quashed the detention and penalty orders under section 129 of the GST Act due to the absence of intent to evade tax. Although the e-way bill omitted the transporter's name, the truck number and other details were provided, and the goods were transported within Delhi as per the tax invoice and e-way bill. The Court found no evidence of tax evasion or misrepresentation, noting the appellant's unchallenged claim that the goods were transported as a full truckload to its warehouse. Consequently, the penalty proceedings lacked justification. Both the original and appellate orders impugned were set aside, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
