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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for failure to re-validate the e-way bill within the prescribed 8-hour period, accepting the petitioner's claim of vehicle breakdown causing a 15-hour delay. The Court noted the absence of wilful misconduct or tax fraud and found the appellate authority erred in dismissing the defence for lack of documentary evidence, given the circumstances of mechanical repair en route. Consequently, the orders dated 27 December 2023 and 29 August 2024 imposing the penalty and demand were quashed. The petitioners, having already paid the penalty, are entitled to seek a refund, which the authorities must consider within two weeks of application. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for failure to re-validate the e-way bill within the prescribed 8-hour period, accepting the petitioner's claim of vehicle breakdown causing a 15-hour delay. The Court noted the absence of wilful misconduct or tax fraud and found the appellate authority erred in dismissing the defence for lack of documentary evidence, given the circumstances of mechanical repair en route. Consequently, the orders dated 27 December 2023 and 29 August 2024 imposing the penalty and demand were quashed. The petitioners, having already paid the penalty, are entitled to seek a refund, which the authorities must consider within two weeks of application. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
